House of Commons

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 22 January 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

1. What steps she is taking to put girls and women at the heart of the UK’s development programmes.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

Before I answer that question, may I say how shocked and saddened I was to hear of the deaths of the Britons, Simon Chase and Del Singh, in the recent bomb attack in Kabul? Both were part of the effort to rebuild Afghanistan. Del was an employee of Adam Smith International, working on a Department for International Development programme. Our thoughts are with their families.

Giving women and girls a voice, choice and control has a transformative impact on poverty reduction and it is critical to freer and fairer societies and economies. The Department for International Development puts that at the centre of its work, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who is introducing a private Member’s Bill on this very topic.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I welcome the fact that the United Nations does such good work to support women and girls. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the earliest years in a child’s life are the most important, and will she tell us what steps her Department is taking to support greater life chances for baby girls?

[Justine Greening]

This is an area on which my hon. Friend rightly spends a lot of time. Much of DFID’s work focuses on early-years health, including maternal health and antenatal and postnatal health education. Furthermore, our G8 focused on nutrition, which is particularly important in ensuring that babies grow up healthy.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the extent to which the amount of food, medical supplies and fuel that is entering Gaza meets the needs of the population.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

The collapse in the supply of fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza in recent months and the rising price of food are exacerbating the already precarious humanitarian situation caused by restrictions on the movement of goods and people and the devastation of the winter storms.

[Nia Griffith]

The Minister will know that there are severe drug shortages in Gaza, leading to problems with the provision of proper emergency care. What is his Department doing to ensure that the Palestinians get better, more timely access to the health care that they need?

[Mr Duncan]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was in the Palestinian territories last week and I spoke directly to a number of people in Gaza. The shortage of drugs is a serious issue, and it has been since about 2007. DFID is supporting the UN access co-ordination unit to work with the World Health Organisation, Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the agencies to help to facilitate the transfer of medical equipment and supplies, and patient referrals, in and out of Gaza.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Given that Egypt also has a border with Gaza, will the Minister tell us what representations he has made to the Egyptian Government on the steps they are taking to improve access?

[Mr Duncan]

The key point is that the tunnels from Egypt are now largely shut. DFID has had no direct conversations with the Government of Egypt, but I hope to visit that country in the next few months, and when I do so I have no doubt that that matter will be on the agenda.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

Someone who did much to draw attention to the plight of the people living in Gaza, and who also represented Labour Friends of Palestine in the Gaza marathon two years ago and in the Bethlehem marathon, was Del Singh. He was killed last weekend in the attack on a restaurant in Kabul. Will the Minister join me in remembering Del Singh, and does he agree that Del will best be remembered by all of us redoubling our efforts to bring an end to the blockade of Gaza?

[Mr Duncan]

I wholly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. We offer our condolences and full sympathy following Del Singh’s death. It would be a tribute to him if we were all to raise the issue of the humanitarian challenge now facing Gaza. It is no exaggeration to say that, come the autumn, Gaza could be without food, without power and without clean water. One UN report predicts that it could become an unliveable place, meaning that it risks becoming unfit for human habitation.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s forthcoming talks with the Egyptian Government. Will he impress on them that, while we support the security crackdown in Sinai, it is important that they should make suitable provision for humanitarian assistance to cross the Egypt-Gaza border?

[Mr Duncan]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but at the moment those borders are closed. Under international law and other obligations, primary responsibility rests with the occupying power, and it is to that end that we will continue to work closely with Israel in an attempt to alleviate the humanitarian pressure that Gaza currently faces.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

3. What assessment she has made of the educational needs of Syrian-born children in Syria and in refugee communities.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

5. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria; and if she will make a statement.

[Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve the co-ordination of humanitarian support for Syria and the surrounding region.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached catastrophic proportions. In July last year, the United Nations estimated that more than 100,000 people had been killed. More than 9 million people in Syria now need humanitarian aid, 6.5 million of whom are internally displaced, and 2.4 million Syrians have fled the country. In Syria, 2 million children are out of school. The UK has led efforts to improve the co-ordination of the humanitarian response and the development of the “no lost generation” strategy, which is focused on helping the children affected by the crisis.

[Mr McCann]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s response. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has asked western countries to give refuge to some of Syria’s most vulnerable people affected by this terrible war, including orphan children. The USA and Australia have stepped up to the plate. Why are the UK Government not doing so?

[Justine Greening]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are playing a leading role, particularly in working with the very people affected by the crisis whom he has just talked about. The UK was instrumental in setting up the “no lost generation” initiative. It is absolutely focused not only on making sure that the millions of children affected by this crisis get education, but on protection. It is a crucial project, we are working hand in hand with UNICEF and I assure him that the UK is playing a leading role to ensure that we work with those very people he rightly cares about.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Nearly one in five schools in Syria has been destroyed, damaged or used by the military. At the very least at the talks in Geneva, will the Government press all parties to the Syrian conflict to end the use or targeting of schools or health facilities?

[Justine Greening]

We certainly will, and we have been pressing for access for many, many months. Of course, the sort of actions my hon. Friend describes are a breach of international humanitarian law.

[Dr Lee]

Does the Secretary of State agree that mobile Army surgical hospital units, which can be built in the UK, funded by DFID and deployed within 24 hours by our military, would be a further effective way of Britain providing humanitarian support to the people of Syria and the surrounding region?

[Justine Greening]

I know that my hon. Friend has held an Adjournment debate on this subject. Clearly, in Syria we are seeking to provide medical support, and although his idea may not be appropriate for Syria, it does have potential applicability for other humanitarian crises.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the number of Syrian refugees who have reached the Lebanon is now about 1 million. What is her Department doing in support of local non-governmental organisations as they respond to educational and other vital needs?

[Justine Greening]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. I was in Lebanon last week and as part of that visit I went to a local school that is now running a double shift. I spoke to the head teacher, who is now having to run a school which not only educates Lebanese children in the morning but educates Syrian children in the afternoon. Part of that trip saw me announce funding for textbooks for 300,000 children at public school in Lebanon, including Syrian children. It is incredibly important that countries such as the UK work with countries such as Lebanon, not only to help the Syrian refugees directly, but to help host communities cope.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I wish to return to an earlier supplementary question. There is a general welcome for UK financial support for Syrian refugees, but of course there is growing concern about the Government’s refusal to admit any of the refugees to the UK. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many other countries have said yes? How can it be right that the British Government continue to say no when countries and nations as diverse as the United States, Moldova and even the new hard-line Government in Australia are willing to do the right thing?

[Justine Greening]

The UK is playing a leading role in helping the refugees from Syria. We are the third largest grantee of asylum to Syrian refugees in the European Union, after Germany and Sweden. It is wrong to suggest that we are not playing a leading role, because we are. Ultimately, all countries decide the form that their support will take and we have chosen a broad-based support which has helped millions of people in Syria. I very much hope that other EU member states can step up to the plate more fully in giving financial backing to the UN’s appeal, which was announced in Kuwait last week.

[Mr Murphy]

Surely it is not an issue of money or refugees; surely those are not mutually exclusive. The UK aid charities are right when they ask

“how can we call on Syria’s neighbours to keep their borders open to refugees if we keep our own under lock and key?”

We are talking about torture victims and children who have lost both their parents. I think it is likely that, over time, the Government will change their position on this, so can the Secretary of State at least confirm that she is willing to enter into discussions about detailed plans with the United Nations? Otherwise, despite the financial generosity, the UK will be seen by some refugees as shrill and unwelcoming.

[Justine Greening]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is right. Obviously, the Home Secretary has already responded to the UN in relation to the issues that he has just raised. We will continue to look at what we can do to support the refugees. It would be wrong for anybody to say anything other than that the UK has played a leading role in the extent, the co-ordination and, latterly, the shaping of our support, in particular focusing it on helping children affected by the crisis.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

With a contribution of £600 million, the Government are probably the lead contributor to humanitarian relief, but does the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is concern that if there is not a solution to this crisis in the coming 12 months, there will not be enough resources in the world to meet humanitarian crises elsewhere? It is absolutely imperative that everything is done to try to achieve a situation in which we can sustain the support.

[Justine Greening]

Ultimately, we need a political solution to move forward in Syria, which is why the Geneva II talks are so important. We all hope that we can see progress there, but nobody underestimates the challenges.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

May I press the Secretary of State on the refugee issue? Millions of people have been displaced from their homes, and it is only right that the UK takes its share of those refugees and gives sanctuary under its international obligations. I urge the Secretary of State to make the UK Government do the right thing.

[Justine Greening]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have absolutely played a leading role in Europe in accepting asylum-seeking Syrians. When I go into the region and talk directly to refugees—I have done that on many occasions now—they are clear that they want the chance to go back home to Syria. That hope of going home is precisely why, having moved across the border into Jordan and Lebanon, they have stayed in the camps in those communities.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

There must be occasions in international affairs when compassion trumps all other political and policy considerations. Surely there are echoes of the Kindertransport here. Surely we can find a place in our hearts for just a small number of these terribly tortured and disaffected Syrian children. Surely we can find room for them in the United Kingdom—just a few of them, just anything. Please say yes.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is right to show that level of compassion for those children who have been so badly affected by this crisis. I can reassure him that the UK is playing a leading role in the area of broad humanitarian support. As he will be aware, we were instrumental in setting up the “no lost generation” initiative with UNICEF. We are now UNICEF’s largest bilateral donor, which shows that we work directly with children.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that there are many Syrian refugees living all over the UK, including in my constituency. One came to see me recently with a tragic story of how her family were unable to get cancer treatment. Obviously that was because of the impact on medical services in that country. What assessment has she made of the availability of medical care across the spectrum as a result of the conflicts?

[Justine Greening]

We have been involved in providing medical support both outside Syria, to refugees in the region, and inside Syria. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are now a quarter of a million people living in besieged towns and cities with no access to medical supplies. The situation is dire.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

4. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of UK support to the Global Partnership for Education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

The UK is currently the largest donor to the Global Partnership for Education, providing on average of £50 million per year from 2012 to 2014. GPE estimates that in 2012 its funding supported around 4.5 million children in primary school, 1.3 million of whom with DFID support.

[Mr Williams]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the Government’s leading role in the Global Partnership for Education, which has done so much to fulfil the entitlement of all children to an education and is now turning its sights to the quality of education through teacher training. Given the Government’s strong support for it, what plans does she have to champion the GP’s replenishment this year and to encourage other donors to come forward?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to his work and interest in this area. The UK is currently the largest bilateral donor to basic education. That is the sector in which aid is now declining. We strongly encourage other donors to step up to the plate alongside us, as well as mother countries themselves. We will determine our plans for support to the GP based on the case they make for replenishment. We will use that as a basis for—

[Mr Speaker]

We are deeply grateful to the Minister. We are immensely obliged to the Minister, but we have quite a lot to get through.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Global Partnership for Education estimates that 50% of children who are out of school live in conflict-affected areas. Will the Minister say a little more about the discussions she has had with the Global Partnership for Education about how the UK can further support work to reduce disruption to education in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Sudan?

[Lynne Featherstone]

DFID takes a strong lead in education in conflict areas and we talk with all our partners about how best to deliver. The GPE is particularly important, as it has particular expertise in delivering in such situations.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

7. How much funding her Department provides to Save the Children annually.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

In financial year 2012-13, DFID provided £55 million to Save the Children for its international humanitarian and long-term development work. During 2013, additional funding was agreed for Save the Children’s response to humanitarian crisis, including projects in Syria, the Philippines and the Central African Republic.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the hon. Lady agree that an organisation receiving so much Government money has a duty to remain non-political and that tweeting insults about Lady Thatcher and implied criticisms of Government education policy suggests that Save the Children and its Labour spin doctor chief executive have a lot more work to do in that regard?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, but I do not quite share his position. DFID does not provide funding for political lobbying activities. Save the Children works to save children’s lives and does an extremely good job. It also fights for children’s rights. In pursuing those laudable social aims, of course it engages legitimately with politicians and political processes in the UK and internationally.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

What progress is being made along with Save the Children in trying to promote literacy skills among young females in many of the nation states where Save the Children operates?

[Lynne Featherstone]

DFID has a number of great literacy programmes across all states. It works very closely with Save the Children and funds a great many of its projects.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

8. What assessment her Department has made of the implications for its development programmes of recent elections in Bangladesh.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We are watching events carefully in Bangladesh following the recent elections. We have no intention of rushing into any decisions and have not cancelled any existing programmes.

[Nick de Bois]

Does the Minister agree that much money from his Department is put to good use but that investment in encouraging democracy among the people is wasted when the leaders seem not to wish to practise it?

[Mr Duncan]

It is true that the state of politics in Bangladesh leaves a lot to be desired. It does not, however, mean that our efforts are wasted. We do not give any direct funding to political parties, but we work with parliamentary Committees, particularly the Public Accounts Committee, to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, much of which is done through non-governmental organisations.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I urge the Minister, whatever the outcome or conduct of the elections, to continue with our programme of helping and working with NGOs in Bangladesh?

[Mr Duncan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The outcome of the elections is largely clear, albeit that there has been a lot of recrimination. We are careful not to give direct budget support to a Government in the face of such controversy, but we are giving sectoral support—for instance, in education—and we will continue to work, largely through NGOs, to deliver the good work that DFID does in that country.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The worrying situation in Bangladesh underlines the links between development and stability and looks like a good candidate for support from the new conflict, stability and security fund that the Government are establishing. Will DFID be centrally involved in setting priorities for that fund and ensuring that the links between development and stability are reinforced?

[Mr Duncan]

We are fully involved in the new fund, which will replace the conflict pool from 2015, and we have worked very closely with the apparatus of the National Security Council to ensure that everything DFID does is fully aligned with the broader judgments of other Departments across Whitehall in this area.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

Since the last session of DFID questions, I have announced a further £100 million in new funding at the Syria pledging conference in Kuwait, bringing our total funding to £600 million. That included announcing funding with Islamic Relief for education programmes helping children into education in Jordan. Last Friday, the private Member’s Bill on gender equality promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) successfully passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. My Department is also focused on our humanitarian responses in South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

[Bob Blackman]

There is clear evidence that organisations operating in Palestine with UK taxpayers’ money are responsible for inciting hatred and violence against the Israeli people. What action has my right hon. Friend taken either to persuade those organisations to desist from that iniquitous practice or to withdraw UK taxpayers’ money?

[Justine Greening]

We take all those issues incredibly seriously. The UK deplores all incitement to violence, which we raise with both sides and with our partner organisations whenever allegations are made. We believe that President Abbas is committed to non-violence and peace, and DFID funding to the Palestinian Authority funds the salaries of an approved list of civil servants.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On Monday, Catherine Samba-Panza was elected as interim President of the Central African Republic, and she has spoken encouragingly of reconciling the different groups in the country, but the threat of serious conflict remains. The new Government will need significant support, so will the Secretary of State say more about what help the UK is planning to help avert conflict and serious humanitarian disaster?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

Obviously, the situation remains fragile. We welcome the fact that there is now a leader who wants to take things forward. The UK pledged a total of £15 million—we are one of the largest donors to the Central African Republic—and we stand ready, should more requests be made, to listen to them and provide all possible help that we can give.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

T4. South Sudan won independence with great hopes of democracy and freedom, but it has collapsed into near civil war. Will the Minister tell us what steps she has taken to help deal with the humanitarian crisis in that country? [Interruption].

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Ministers can scarcely hear the questions. I appeal to the House to lower the decibel level. The Leader of the House is nodding in assent to my proposition, which is encouraging.

[Lynne Featherstone]

The situation in South Sudan is extremely worrying, and we support the mediation led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. We have given £12.5 million, and £60 million in DFID programmes has been switched to humanitarian assistance. We were hopeful earlier in the week that there might be a cessation of hostilities, but that faint hope has now faded.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

T2. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment her Department has made of the health benefits to the poorest people in low and middle-income countries from UK aid to pro-profit health care providers?

[Justine Greening]

I am happy to tell the hon. Lady that the UK has a variety of health-related programmes. We always focus on value for money, and I am happy to write to her with further details of the portfolio and of how we look at value for money across the piece.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

T6. On Monday, many of us will attend Holocaust memorial day events. The theme is journeys, including journeys of return. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that our thoughts should include, among many others, the millions of displaced Palestinians still denied their right to return to their homes?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

The right of return is of course part of the negotiations that continue as part of the middle east peace process. We fully support the efforts of Secretary Kerry and of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in everything that they are doing, and we want to do all we can to underpin the best prospects for a successful conclusion, which are predicted to occur by the end of April.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

T3. How certain is the Minister that the TradeMark East Africa project is having—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must appeal to the House—it really is the height of discourtesy. The hon. Lady wishes to be heard, I wish to hear her, and the Minister needs to hear her.

[Pat Glass]

How certain is the Minister that the TradeMark East Africa project is having a positive impact on poverty reduction?

[Justine Greening]

This is an important project that is working in east Africa to remove many of the barriers to trade that hold back that region. We continue to assess the project, and our assessment is that it is working well. We will continue to look at it as it moves forward. If any project is bad value for money, we stop it.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

T9. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update on the international humanitarian pledging conference held in Kuwait last week? Will she share with the House her assessment of the impact of the humanitarian need in Syria?

[Justine Greening]

It is always a pleasure to have a question from my right hon. Friend. We had a very successful pledging conference in Kuwait. The UK pledged £100 million and it raised £2.4 billion in total, which will provide vital humanitarian support to the Syrian crisis.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

T7. Several people have been killed and hundreds of civilians displaced in Burma recently in Rakhine state. What representation has the Secretary of State made about greater humanitarian access to internally displaced persons, especially the Rohingya persecuted minority?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this incredibly important question, which we pursue through our Foreign Office with the Burmese regime. She will be aware that we have put in significant humanitarian support, particularly focused on internally displaced people in the region.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Having just returned from the Nizip-2 Syrian refugee camp, where the conditions were quite good, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State’s Department for what it is doing there, but what is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that some of the other camps in front-line countries are as good as that one?

[Justine Greening]

I thank my hon. Friend for the amazing trip that I know he had during the last couple of weeks to Turkey and the social action projects in the camp there. He is right to raise the issue of conditions in the camps. The UK works with UN agencies to ensure that they are as good as they possibly can be.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that none of the aid given to Belarus from the European Commission is used for state-sponsored oppression?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady will know that the aid to Belarus was transferred under the multi-annual financial framework, which was agreed under the last Government. This Government have tightened that up to make sure that fewer middle-income countries such as Belarus will receive aid in the future.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 January.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to Del Singh and to Simon Chase who were tragically killed in Kabul on Sunday in a cowardly terrorist attack. Both were there to support the Afghan Government and to improve the lives of the Afghan people. Del Singh was a friend to many in the House and had given so much time and dedication to troubled regions across the world. Our thoughts should be with their families and friends at this very difficult time. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Stephen Timms]

I would like to associate myself with the condolences that the Prime Minister expressed on behalf of the whole House.

The Trussell Trust co-ordinates the fast-growing network, now numbering some 400, of church-based food banks, which between them provided food for half a million people, just between April and December last year. Will the Prime Minister be willing to meet representatives of the Trussell Trust to discuss the big challenges with which they are grappling?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be happy to meet them. We have listened carefully to the Trussell Trust. One thing that it wanted to see done by this Government and the previous Government was to allow food banks to be promoted in jobcentres. We have allowed that to happen. That has increased the use of food banks, but it is important to do the right thing rather than something that might just seem politically convenient.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

Q2. The Prime Minister is aware of the tragic case of a two-year-old boy taken to Chase Farm urgent care centre at 3 am for the emergency care he needed. Despite the best efforts of a senior nurse and the paramedics who took him to North Middlesex hospital he was tragically pronounced dead at 4 am. I know that we cannot comment on the case until a full report is published, but does he agree that the effect of reconfigurations, often put through despite local opposition, including from me, is that we are asking people to decide where to go for help at moments of great personal stress? Does he further agree that we must do more to explain the choices to help them decide? On publication of the report, will he meet me to see whether lessons can be learned and changes made?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. This is an absolutely tragic case. I offer my deepest sympathies to Hashir’s family. Anyone who has taken a desperately ill child to hospital in the middle of the night when the child is at risk knows what an incredibly desperate time it can be. I understand that the hospital is carrying out a full and comprehensive investigation into the circumstances around that poor child’s death. I have asked the Health Secretary to discuss the findings of the investigation with my hon. Friend once it is completed. We must ensure that everything is done to avoid these terrible incidents happening in future.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I want to start by paying tribute to the two British nationals, Simon Chase and Del Singh, who were killed in a suicide bomb attack in Afghanistan. Simon Chase had served Britain in the Army, and my condolences go to all his family and friends. Del Singh was one of Labour’s European candidates, and one of the most decent people one could ever hope to meet. He was an international development worker who dedicated his life to helping people across the world, and we all grieve with his family.

Recent reports of the murder of thousands of innocent civilians by the regime in Syria are a reminder of the horror unfolding there. We all hope for significant progress from today’s talks. Last month the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I made a joint statement about the plight of Syrian refugees, which welcomed the Government’s leadership in the aid programme. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has also called on Britain to be part of a programme to help resettle a small number of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. Eighteen countries are part of that programme, but so far Britain is not among them. Does the Prime Minister not agree that we should be?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on just how dreadful the news is that has come out of Syria in recent days, with allegations of torture and worse. I think that we are fulfilling our moral obligations to the people of Syria. We are the second largest bilateral aid donor. The money that British taxpayers are providing is providing food, shelter, water and medicine for literally hundreds of thousands of people.

We are also fulfilling all our obligations in terms of asylum seekers. We have taken over 1,000 asylum seekers from Syria in recent months. We are also making sure that when we can help very vulnerable children who are ill, including a child who is in a British hospital today, we take action as well. I do not believe that we can solve a refugee crisis of this scale, with almost half of Syria’s population of 9 million either displaced or at risk of displacement, with a quota system by which countries are taking a few hundreds refugees. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if there are very difficult cases of people who do not belong in refugee camps who either have been disabled by the dreadful attacks or are in very difficult circumstances, I am happy for us to look at that argument. Britain always plays the right role in these desperate humanitarian crises.

[Edward Miliband]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Let me make just a few points in reply, because this is an important issue. First, we all agree on the leadership that this Government have shown in relation to Syrian aid, and I pay tribute to him, the International Development Secretary and others. On the point about asylum seekers, they are of course the people who have been able to get here, but we are talking about the people who are in the refugee camps at the moment. On his point about whether this can solve the problem, of course it cannot, but the UN is talking about a small number of the most vulnerable people, including children who have lost their parents and victims of torture. I was somewhat encouraged by the end of the Prime Minister’s answer. We are all proud of Britain’s tradition of taking refugees. Why does he not look at it again, say that Britain will participate in the programme, take just a few hundred refugees and, indeed, set an example?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that there is a disagreement between us. The problem I see—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The problem I see is that some countries are using the quota system as a way of saying, “Therefore, I have fulfilled my obligations.” When almost half of the population of 9 million is at risk of displacement, the fact that the Finns, the French or the Swedes will take a few hundred people is not fulfilling their obligations, whereas the massive amount of aid that Britain is putting forward—the second largest in the world—is playing the most important role. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that there are individual cases that we should be looking at, and I am happy to look at those arguments and issues, but let us not pretend that a small quota system can solve the problem of Syrian refugees.

[Edward Miliband]

I do feel we are gradually inching forward on this issue. Let me be clear about this. It must not be an excuse for failing to provide aid—of course it must not—but we are not talking about either providing aid or taking vulnerable refugees; we are talking about doing both. Given the Prime Minister’s reasonable tone, will he now open discussions with the United Nations about Britain making its contribution to this programme? I think colleagues in all parts of the House want this to happen; will he now say he will do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I have made this very clear. We are prepared to listen to the arguments about how we can help the most vulnerable people in those refugee camps. Just to correct the right hon. Gentleman, some of the countries that are participating include in their quotas both asylum numbers and refugee numbers, which is not the argument we should be making. Let me be absolutely clear: Britain is leading the world in terms of humanitarian aid in Syria; we should be proud of that. We are fulfilling our obligations on asylum claims, and we should be proud that we give a home to those who flee torture and persecution. Where there are extreme hardship cases, we should look at those again. That is the approach that we should take. I think there should be all-party support for it, and I think Britain can be proud of the role that we are playing.

[Edward Miliband]

I hope that the Prime Minister will take this away and, as I say, open discussions with the United Nations—[Interruption.] I do not think hon. Members should groan on this issue; I really do not. We know that Britain can make more of a contribution on this specific issue and I hope he will open discussions.

I want to move on to another subject. Today’s welcome fall in unemployment is good for the people concerned—[Interruption.] We welcome the fall in unemployment because whenever an individual gets back into work it is good for them and good for their family. [Interruption.] I have to say to hon. Members that just braying like that does not do anybody any good. Can the Prime Minister confirm that today’s figures also show that average wages are down by £1,600 a year since the election, meaning that for many ordinary families life is getting harder?

[The Prime Minister]

It is worth pausing for a moment over what these statistics show today. They show youth unemployment coming down, long-term unemployment coming down, the claimant count coming down, and unemployment overall coming down—but above all, what we see today is the biggest ever quarterly increase in the number of people in work in our country. There should not be one ounce of complacency—there is still a huge amount of work to do to get Britain back to work—but there are 280,000 more people in work: that is 280,000 more people with the security of a regular pay packet coming in for themselves and their family. Now of course we are seeing a slow growth in wages—why? Because we are recovering from the longest and deepest recession in living memory. Because the Leader of the Opposition keeps quoting the figure without the tax cuts that we have put in place, he is not recognising that actually this year people are better off because we have controlled spending and cut taxes.

[Edward Miliband]

All the Prime Minister has done is show that he is absolutely complacent about the situation, because he is trying to tell millions of families around this country that they are better off when they know they are worse off, and it does not help for him to tell them the opposite. Let me take this figure: in Britain today, there are 13 million people living in poverty—that is a shocking figure. What is scandalous is that for the first time ever the majority of those people are living not in jobless families but in working families. What is his explanation for that?

[The Prime Minister]

The explanation is what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, which is that wages have increased much less quickly than inflation. As I say, that is not surprising. We have had the biggest recession in 100 years. It would be astonishing if household incomes had not fallen and earnings had not fallen. The fact is that we are recovering from the mess that Labour left us. Every week the Leader of the Opposition comes here and raises a new problem that he created. We had the betting problem, then we had the banking problem, then we had the deficit problem, and now we have the cost of living problem. He is like an arsonist who goes round setting fire after fire and then complains when the fire brigade are not putting out the fires fast enough. Why does he not start with an apology for the mess that he left us?

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister comes here every week and does his Bullingdon club routine, and all he shows is that he has absolutely no understanding of the lives of people up and down this country. That is the reality: ordinary families are working harder for longer for less; he is cutting taxes for millionaires and not helping those families; and the minimum wage is falling in value. He cannot be the solution to the cost of living crisis, because he just does not understand the problem.

[The Prime Minister]

We are cutting taxes for everyone in our country, and we are able to do that only because we have controlled spending. What the right hon. Gentleman cannot face is the fact that the economy is improving. For months, the Opposition told us to listen to the IMF. Remember that? We had five tweets in one month from the shadow Chancellor: “Listen to the IMF”. Now the IMF is telling us, “The economy is growing. Stick to the plan. Unemployment is going down”—not a word.

We should remember that the Leader of the Opposition predicted 1 million more unemployed; we got 1 million more in work. He predicted the deficit would go up; the deficit is coming down. The fact is today our plan is working. There are 1.3 million more people in work in our country, which is 1.3 million more people with the security of a regular pay packet. We are securing Britain’s future, and it would be put at risk by Labour.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Q3. The systematic torture and killing of 11,000 people detained by the Syrian state is surely a war crime. As there can be no lasting peace without justice, will the Prime Minister resist conceding any immunity from prosecution for war crimes at the Geneva II talks that start today, so that the next time a tyrant turns on his own people the deterrent of international law is not muffled?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Britain is actually going further than that by making sure that we play our role not just in the humanitarian crisis that we have discussed, but in collecting evidence about war crimes so that people can be held to account for the dreadful things that they have done.

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Q4. Does the Prime Minister agree with Lord Stevens and the Home Secretary that stop-and-search needs reform, or does his fear of Nigel Farage mean that he will block it?

[The Prime Minister]

Stop-and-search does need reform. The report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary shows that in 27% of cases the police have not followed their own guidance on stop-and-search, so we do need to reform stop-and-search. If it is necessary to legislate, we will legislate; if it is not, we will not. What is really important is that stop-and-search is used properly, and that we do not add to the burdens of the police.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Q5. The Government’s roll-out of rural broadband will double the number of homes and businesses that receive broadband from 40% to 80%, but 17% of people will still be left without full fast broadband. Will the Government work with me to deliver that extra 20%, because it is very much part of our long-term economic plan?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who represent rural communities, broadband is not just part of the economic plan but an absolutely vital part, because without that connectivity small businesses and entrepreneurs in our constituencies will not be able to benefit. We have seen massive investment go into broadband; we will shortly set out our plans for the £250 million announced in June to extend superfast broadband coverage to 95% of the UK by 2017; and we are now connecting up tens of thousands of homes and businesses every week—all progress that was not made under the Labour Government.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that the remarks of the Irish Foreign Minister about the Haass talks and the possibility of some kind of intervention by his Government are deeply unhelpful, that the vast majority of the issues at stake in the Haass talks are internal to Northern Ireland and are matters for the parties in Northern Ireland to engage and agree on, that there can be no question of an imposed solution and that the most helpful thing the Irish Government could do about the past is to be more forthcoming about the role of the state authorities in collusion with the IRA?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is absolutely no question of an imposed solution. The proposal for the Haass discussions was a proposal of the Northern Ireland parties themselves. I obviously wish this process well. I think Haass did a good job in providing the architecture of a future solution on parades, flags and the past. I hope the parties can come together and continue the work. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary will do what she can to help to facilitate that work. I think it is important to go on discussing this with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. They have taken steps themselves to come to terms with some of the things that happened in their past. If the parties work together, and if the British and Irish Governments are there to help, I hope we can make some progress.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Q6. I am incredibly proud to represent a large gay community in my constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the views of some, the weather in Brighton is nearly always very sunny?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is quite right that Brighton has a superb microclimate that people should be encouraged to take advantage of. He stands up for all his constituents with great vim and vigour. In reward, it would only be fair if Brighton, Kemptown was put in the shipping forecast somewhere between Dover and Wight, so that we had a reflection of that every morning.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Q7. Hitachi Rail Europe and Gestamp are working with Sunderland university to establish a university technical college in my constituency. That has the support of the Department for Transport. Will the Prime Minister assure me that he will support the college and ensure that the decision on the bid is taken quickly, so that employers and young people can acquire the skills that they need?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a great supporter of university technical colleges. They are providing a really good new set of schools for our country that focus on vocational training and education. The announcement of the new college last week was welcome news. It will open its doors in 2017. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on that issue.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Q8. Voyage Care and Igloo are just two of the companies that have set up shop recently in my constituency, bringing hundreds of new jobs to an area where long-term unemployment has fallen by 35% and youth unemployment by 40%. Will my right hon. Friend commend the good sense of those companies for coming to Tamworth, encourage more to do the same and consider visiting Tamworth so that he can see for himself how our long-term economic plan is delivering results?

[The Prime Minister]

I am always happy to visit Tamworth and spend time in the shadow of Sir Robert Peel. I have enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency in the past. We are seeing a recovery, particularly in jobs and getting people off the unemployment register. It is worth noting that today’s figures also show that full-time employment is up by 220,000, compared with just a 60,000 increase in part-time employment. That shows that people are getting the full-time jobs that they want. I am happy to commend the businesses he is welcoming to Tamworth.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The green shoots of economic recovery are not being realised across the entire UK. Does he intend to speak to the Governor of the Bank of England to make him aware that, in low-wage economy areas, any increase in inflation would undoubtedly have a devastating impact on many households?

[The Prime Minister]

We of course want to secure a recovery in every region of our country and in every nation of our United Kingdom. Employment in Scotland went up by 10,000 in the last quarter and there are 90,000 more people in work than there were a year ago, so progress is being made and the Scottish economy is performing. We should do everything we can to make that happen. Whether we keep interest rates down is a matter for the Bank of England. Our role must be to continue the work that we are doing to get the deficit down. In doing that, we have to make difficult decisions on spending. We are not helped by the fact that, of all the difficult decisions we have made, not one has been supported by the Labour party.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Q9. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that we learn lessons from the Labour Welsh Assembly Government on how to run public services. Given that Wales has seen cuts to the NHS budget and has the worst education system in the UK, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only lesson that we can learn from it is that those who care about public services should vote Conservative?

[The Prime Minister]

It is possible to look closely at the decisions that the Labour Government have taken in Wales and at the effect of those decisions. They have not followed our approach of protecting spending on the NHS. There has been an 8% cut to the NHS budget in Wales. As a result, they have not met an A and E target since 2009. Like my hon. Friend, I also worry about some of the changes that have been made to education in Wales, because we want all children in our country to get the benefits that come from good basics in education, proper tests and proper league tables.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

Q10. This weekend, Nigel Wilson, the chief executive of Legal & General, one of our biggest financial companies, urged the Government to abandon their Help to Buy scheme in London to prevent house prices from spiralling out of control. Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Wilson that we should instead use the money to build new homes across the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

We are building homes across the United Kingdom, but one better than what she suggests is what we have done, which is to give the power to the Bank of England to advise specifically on any potential problems in the housing market, or, indeed, in any other market. We have cleared up the mess of the regulatory system we were left by the Labour party, so that proper warnings can be given in proper time.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Q11. Under the Labour Government, manufacturing was neglected and the sector halved in size. With this Government investing in manufacturing excellence at the Manufacturing Technology Centre in my constituency, and with the success of companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls-Royce in important export markets, does the Prime Minister agree that a resurgent manufacturing sector is part of this Government’s long-term plan for the economy?

[The Prime Minister]

Rebalancing our economy is absolutely part of our long-term economic plan. We want to see a balanced recovery—balanced between manufacturing and services, and properly balanced between north and south—and make sure that we win back jobs and orders from overseas. Companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls-Royce have the full backing and support of the Government: they have investment going into apprenticeship schemes, which are helping them; we have reformed UK Trade & Investment, so we can help them sell around the world; we are doing everything we can to encourage them to bring jobs back into the UK; and manufacturing exports and investment are responding well.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Q12. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, sorry is still the hardest word to say, but does the Prime Minister agree that Alex Salmond owes the people of Scotland an apology for a White Paper—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to Members on both sides of the House that this is supposed to be questions to the Prime Minister, not a Punch and Judy show.

[Mr McCann]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree that Alex Salmond owes the people of Scotland an apology for a White Paper that dodges the tough questions and does not explain that by adopting the pound interest rates will go up, because Scotland’s lender of last resort will be a foreign bank?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The White Paper, which we were told would answer all questions, has actually left all the most important questions—on the future of the currency, on Scotland’s place in the European Union, on the future of defence jobs and on the future financial services—unanswered. I think that that is why Mr Salmond is struggling to get his argument across.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

We can currently celebrate record investment in North sea oil and gas production and all the jobs that they support but we have to recognise the growing concern at the lack of exploration. Will the Prime Minister therefore recommit the Government to their tax stability policy to encourage as much exploration as possible and ensure future investment?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is very important that we make the most out of the asset that is the North sea. That is what the Wood report is all about, and we are putting those proposals in place. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen very carefully to what he says about ensuring that the tax system encourages maximum recovery in the long term.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

Q13. Del Singh was an extraordinary person: a warm and generous friend, and a passionate campaigner for peace and justice. He dedicated his life to working for those in need in areas of conflict, including in Afghanistan. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that, after the drawdown of troops this year, the work of people such as Del Singh will continue to be supported by this Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much share what the hon. Lady said about Del Singh. It reminds us of the risks that aid workers take on our behalf to deliver vital assistance around the world. I can give her the assurance she seeks. It is very important for everyone to recognise that, while our troops are coming home at the end of 2014, our commitment to Afghanistan will continue: not just our commitment to its armed forces but, with more than $100 million a year, our commitment to its aid and future development. We will need many more brave people such as Del Singh to go on working with the Afghan Government to deliver for the Afghan people.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Q14. Formula 1 team McLaren is the largest employer in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating it on the hundreds of new jobs it is creating locally, on the global sell-out of its P1 sports car and on the £50 million of exports it will achieve this year in China? Surely these are yet more examples of the success of British business and of our long-term economic plan.

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for McLaren and the work of Ron Dennis, who helpfully brought one of his cars to our great meeting in China on encouraging investment into the UK. Of course, this is the very highest end of British motor manufacturing, but it is worth recognising that a vehicle rolls off a British production line every 20 seconds. The British motor industry is doing well, this Government are backing it and long may that continue.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

May I also thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for their kind words about my friend Del Singh, who devoted his too-short life to working for peace and justice, not least in Palestine and Afghanistan?

The number of new affordable home starts has fallen by a third since 2010. Why is that? Is it in part because Tory councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham, are demolishing council homes—the most affordable type of housing—and selling the land for exclusively private development?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. The number of housing starts is 89% higher than the trough Labour left us in 2009. We have already delivered more than 100,000 affordable homes and will deliver 170,000 in total by 2015, and the rate of affordable house building will soon be the highest it has been for two decades, which is a massive contrast with Labour, under which housing waiting lists almost doubled. If he does not believe me, he might want to listen to this quotation—and guess who it is from:

“We refused to prioritise the building of new social housing”.

Who said that? Anyone? It was the Leader of the Opposition. Thank you very much.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q15. May I commend the Prime Minister for his firm action against unscrupulous payday lenders and for driving the credit union expansion project? Will he now urge more employers to consider partnering with their local credit union so that many more people can access affordable credit and convenient savings direct through the payroll?

[The Prime Minister]

I commend my hon. Friend for his consistent campaigning and speaking out on this issue. We are taking the tough action needed on payday lending, but, as he says, the positive side of this is that we need to expand credit unions faster, and we should be looking at all the ways that can be done, including through other organisations partnering with credit unions and encouraging their work.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

A report on the food aid crisis in the UK was commissioned by the Government last February, was given to Ministers early last summer, and yet is still being suppressed. What is the Prime Minister afraid of, and why does he not now publish and be damned?

[The Prime Minister]

What the Government are publishing today is the fact that hundreds of thousands more people are getting into work and able to provide for their families and get the peace of mind and security that people in this country want. That is what we are publishing today, and that is real progress for our nation.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Some 45% of people do not pay their utility bills by direct debit, and 1 million of them do not have bank accounts, yet energy companies charge, on average, £115 extra for people who do not pay by direct debit, hitting pensioners and the poorest the most. Will my right hon. Friend look into this, given that the Government are doing everything possible by cutting energy bills by £50?

[The Prime Minister]

I am certainly happy to look into this issue. We have taken steps to compel the energy companies to put people on the lowest tariffs, and we want to ensure that everyone can take advantage of that. As my hon. Friend said, we have also cut energy bills by £50 by rolling back the cost of some of the green measures, and we should continue to make this market more competitive, to give more choice to consumers and to encourage switching, which happened a huge amount towards the end of last year and has saved many people many hundreds of pounds.

Bill Presented

Public Services (Ownership and User Involvement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Caroline Lucas, supported by Mr John Leech, Katy Clark, John McDonnell, Grahame M. Morris, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Margaret Ritchie, presented a Bill to promote public ownership of public services; to introduce a presumption in favour of service provision by public sector and not-for-profit entities; and to put in place mechanisms to increase the accountability, transparency and public control of public services, including those operated by private companies.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 160).

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars)

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:35

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use on dogs of any electronic collar designed to administer an electric shock; and for connected purposes.

It is claimed that the United Kingdom is a nation of animal lovers, so it is hard to imagine that we would show our affection for our pets by submitting them to electric shocks. However, it remains permissible under the law to sell and use electric shock collars on dogs, and it is believed that there are over 300,000 such devices in use.

Electric shock collars are worn around a dog’s neck and work either by a remote control with various settings that, when pressed, deliver an electric shock to a dog’s neck or by automatically delivering an electric shock to a dog when it barks. These collars are intended to train dogs to respond for fear of further punishment, with the dog receiving a shock when it does not perform what is asked of it, rather than out of a willingness to obey. This is not the type of training method that the Kennel Club endorses and certainly not a practice to which I would subject my Jack Russell, Maximus.

The Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust take the view that unwanted behaviour in dogs is best resolved by positive training methods. As such, my Bill is designed to ban the use of electric shock collars as they are not appropriate devices. Scientific learning theory dictates that if a dog has a strong desire to indulge in what it believes is pleasurable behaviour, any negative training method employed to prevent this has to be far more unpleasant for them than their natural behaviour is pleasant—it has to be extremely aversive. If an action brings about a positive outcome for a dog, that action will be repeated, as it is perceived to be beneficial.

Secondly, electronic training devices fail to address underlying behavioural problems in dogs, and seek to alter their behaviour by introducing a fear of further punishment rather than a willingness to obey. Any change in behaviour would result only from the dog perceiving the shock as painful. An electric shock collar hurts the animal because it has to; if it did not hurt, it would not work.

Electronic training devices also cause further behavioural problems. Dogs have a natural in-built flight or fight response when put in a situation that causes pain and fear, meaning that they either do anything they can to get away from the source of pain or become aggressive in response. Shock collars can thus cause further behavioural problems in addition to the ones owners are attempting to control. As a dog will have no idea what caused the pain, it is far more likely to associate it with something in its immediate environment rather than with its behaviour at the time. This is why there are cases of dogs attacking other dogs, their owners or other animals close by at the time of the shock, as the dog develops “superstitious” fears to things in the environment that were heard or seen at the time of the shock.

The most common defence for using electric shock collars is that they train dogs to stop chasing sheep. However, it is important to note that it is virtually impossible to use an electric shock collar to train a dog not to chase sheep. The theory behind the training method is that the dog will believe that the sheep gave it an electric shock and will thus not chase sheep again. Professional dog trainers claim, however, that success would be based on luck rather than judgment, as it is impossible to know at which level the collar should be set when the dog is near the sheep. In order for the dog to think the sheep shocked it, the trainer would have to wait until the dog was very near the sheep; otherwise, the dog would think the shock came from something else in its immediate environment. If the trainer waited until the dog was very close to the sheep and the setting of the collar was too low, there would be a high chance that the shock would not prevent the dog from worrying the sheep. Similarly, the collar could be set at the highest setting, but have no effect on the dog’s behaviour because the dog is already so aroused by chasing the sheep that it will continue to chase, no matter what shock it received.

Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, a person in control of a dog worrying livestock on agricultural land is guilty of an offence. Under this Act, dogs must be kept on leads or under close control. In reality, dogs exercised near livestock should always be kept on leads—it is as simple as that; there should be no need for an electric shock collar. Other positive training tools and methods can produce dogs that are trained just as quickly and reliably—with absolutely no fear, pain or potential damage to the relationship between dog and handler.

Police dogs, armed forces dogs and assistance dogs are never trained using electric shock training devices. On 2 December, the Minister responded to my parliamentary written question about what progress, following the publication of research funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, had been made on banning electric shock collars on dogs. Having acknowledged that

“electronic training aids can have a negative impact on the welfare of some dogs”,

the Minister added:

“the evidence from these studies is not strong enough to support a ban under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Government therefore has no plans to ban such devices in England. However, we have asked the industry to draw up guidance for dog owners and trainers advising how to use e-collars properly and to develop a manufacturers’ charter to ensure any e-collars on sale are made to high standards.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 511W.]

The findings of the recent publication of studies AW1402 and AW1402a greatly favour elimination of the use of electric shock collars. The first DEFRA project concluded that there was great variability in the way in which electric shock collars were used on dogs, and showed that owners tended not to read or follow the advice given in the instructions. The main conclusion was that there were significant negative welfare consequences for some of the dogs that had been trained with electric shock collars in the study.

The second study was on electric shock collars on dogs by trained professionals according to industry standards. The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association was asked to design the training protocol and to recommend industry-trained professionals to take part in the study. The research project concluded that there was enough evidence, in the form of both behavioural and psychological changes, to support the argument that the use of electric shock collars, even by industry-trained professionals, still had a negative impact on dog welfare.

It therefore remains the view of the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the British Veterinary Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that electric shock collars are negative training devices that have a detrimental impact on dog welfare. My Bill would ban their use, which has already been banned in Wales, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Dr Matthew Offord, John Stevenson, Jim Fitzpatrick, Simon Wright, Zac Goldsmith, Mr David Amess, Martin Caton, Joan Walley, Andrew Rosindell and Mr John Baron present the Bill.

Dr Matthew Offord accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February and to be printed (Bill 159).

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 3 September 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme) and 8 October 2013 (Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill: Programme (No. 2)).

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Any Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

2. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

3. The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on the Government’s lobbying Bill: follow up, HC 891.]

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 13, 14, 88 and 100. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 2

Meaning of consultant lobbying

12:44

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 101 to 103, 5 and 6.

Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 8 to 15.

[Mr Allen]

I am delighted to initiate the debate.

The Bill has a chequered history as regards Parliament’s involvement in it so far, which, I am sorry to say, has demonstrated in spades the contempt that the Executive have for the legislature. I would like to expand on that just a little before I get into the detail of the amendments.

The contempt started when this Bill first came to the House, and is continuing to the very end of the process without relenting. We started this Bill having had some pre-legislative scrutiny of what we all called the lobbying Bill, only to find that one day before the summer recess a mega-Bill was presented, two thirds of which had not even seen the light of day in public let alone been discussed, analysed or subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny by this House. That is our job, but we were prevented from doing it because this Bill was presented far too late in the day, one day before a summer recess. Just to add insult to injury, it was then stuffed into the parliamentary sausage machine one week after we returned from the summer break.

That story has been repeated throughout the passage of the Bill. One might have thought that, even if only for the sake of window-dressing, there would be the odd pause, the odd break, the odd extension, or a gap between consideration by their lordships and this House, but not a bit of it. That demonstrates the way the Government treat this House, particularly when they have an embarrassment such as this Bill in front of them.

Mr Speaker is an authority on these matters and he will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that it was possible to have a shorter period between consideration yesterday in the second Chamber and consideration today in Parliament. Could the House have squeezed that period even more? Could we have met last night to discuss this?

The Government had a pause in the other place, which I welcome. Six weeks is not wonderful and my Select Committee called for six months—we called for the job to be done properly. We were grateful for those six weeks, however, but there was no opportunity for colleagues in this House to consider what their lordships had said and read it carefully, because, as we know, amendments were being made up to the very last moment in the second Chamber. None of us had that opportunity—Front Benchers, colleagues who are interested in this issue and above all Back Benchers, and, may I say, the Select Committee, which seeks to represent Back Benchers and which has the legitimacy of being a Select Committee elected by Members from all parts of this House in a secret ballot, with a Chair elected by the whole House. Despite that legitimacy, none of us was allowed to see any paperwork or the Order Paper after that consideration in the second Chamber yesterday. It is an absolute disgrace, and it cannot be allowed to continue if we are to have any reputation in this House for doing our job on accountability and scrutiny effectively.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the process of this Bill and congratulate him and his Committee on the tremendous job they have done in turning round a report overnight—and under huge pressure, I am quite sure. Does he agree that that pressure has extended not just to those of us in this place, but to those who will be directly affected by this in civil society, and who have also had to work overnight to analyse the Lords amendments and come back to us with their perspectives on them today?

[Mr Allen]

As there is no good will whatever from the Executive and there is no effective process for this House other than to be told what to do and have its agenda written for it on a daily basis by the Executive, then, yes, we rely on the good will of other people. My Select Committee—a number of colleagues who serve on it are present—relies upon its Clerks, who have done an absolutely stunning job. My own Clerk was at the printers last night producing a report for Members of all parts of this House until gone 9 o’clock, and I sent that report to every Member of the House at 11.20 pm.

Is this a trivial, pointless Bill or is it an important Bill? Is it appropriate that the Chair of a Select Committee is sending a report to Members of this House just before midnight for consideration the very next day? I do not think the Government have sent anything to Members, but they are asking their colleagues to walk through the Lobby on these issues. The way the House is being treated is outrageous—again. We can all get puffed up and annoyed by stuff, but this is serious. This is about the way in which the Bill will shape the next general election and how our charities and voluntary organisations will participate in our political life. This is not a trivial matter. It is not as though 95% of people vote—the numbers voting creep down ever lower. People say, “You’re not worth going out and voting for, any of you.” And then we do this.

If this is the way we treat the important topic of lobbying—“the next big scandal”, as the Prime Minister called it—and thousands of individual charities, it speaks ill of this place and I think that we can do better.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in opening the debate on these important amendments. He has rightly outlined the anger that is felt on this side of the House, by groups in civil society and by our constituents. I have been contacted by more than 100 of my constituents about the Bill and they are looking to this Chamber to make representations on their behalf about how they can participate in our democracy in the future. I see this process as an affront to our democracy. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Allen]

It is a continuing affront to our democracy, and I hope that Ministers—and future Ministers—will take this to heart and consider how the process of effectively scrutinising legislation can be amended.

I will now advertise another report by my Committee on the quality of legislation. It suggests, for example, mandatory pre-legislative scrutiny of all Bills, apart from emergency ones. That is not from a desire to delay any legislation. I believe that in our form of democracy, the Government should get their business through. The contribution that Parliament makes is to ensure that legislation is more effective. Otherwise, we have to come back until we get it right—in this case, after the next general election. It does not save time to keep coming back to the House, as we did—infamously—on criminal justice Bills under the last Government, tinkering year after year and with Ministers getting the prestige of having a Bill before the House. Instead, Governments should listen to the House and get legislation closer to being right.

I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that pressure from Back Benchers on both sides of the House will force our Front Benchers to agree a better process of involving Parliament in partnership with the Executive.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, whom I consider to be my friend, although technically he is not so in this House. I am grateful for all the work he, his Committee and the Clerks have done and the briefings they have sent us. I, too, am concerned about the shortage of time. How long does the hon. Gentleman think we should have had between the other place considering this matter and it coming before us?

[Mr Allen]

Given that the Government want to get the Bill implemented in order to influence the expenditure limits in the next general election, I do not maintain that it should be held over for months and months. Hon. Members may wish to read the report from my Select Committee, which we produced last night, starting at 6.30 pm, and which I delivered by e-mail to every Member just before midnight. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are prepared to say, “These guys are serious, and we should at least have a look at their report”, I suggest that we should have at least two days to read the papers and to table measured amendments.

Thanks to the great assistance of the Clerks, I was able to table several amendments on behalf of my Committee last night, but I imagine that few hon. Members know their way around the Order Paper well enough to do that. The Table Office was open until 10 this morning, which means about two working hours for colleagues to read the report, listen to the Government, read the proceedings in the other place and decide whether to support an all-party view—as expressed in the report—and to table, as some have managed to do, their own amendments. The way we conduct our business helps us to get better law. It means that what we produce will stand the test of time, rather than need reviewing or stitching back together when the gaps appear over the next few years.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my thanks to those of hon. Members who have thanked my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done overnight. As a relatively new Member, I find it an extraordinary abuse of process for the Bill to be conducted in this way—I read the report at 12.15 last night, and I tried to do it justice, given the effort that had been made.

Like many other hon. Members, I struggled to balance two or three other responsibilities this morning, including attending Committees, with doing justice to this extraordinary Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot go on in this way?

[Mr Allen]

Indeed. All parties are now, for the first time in a fixed-term Parliament, entering a prolonged discussion of policy and undertaking a manifesto process that will no longer take just 28 days and be decided only by party leaders. We will all have a chance to influence the process. If hon. Members care about Parliament, whatever their party, and want to make it relevant to the electorate, who hold us in contempt, I urge them to propose ways in which the House can make a contribution to our democratic process. We would all be stronger for that and start to win back some of the reputation that we have lost in recent years.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I, too, commend my hon. Friend and his Committee for all the work that they have done to ensure proper scrutiny of the Bill, but he might be being a little too unfair on the Government. It is not my usual practice to defend Ministers, but one of the successes that the Bill has had in its progress through both Houses is that it has unified the transparency campaigners and the lobbying industry, both of which agree that the Bill is chronically bad and will make things worse not better.

[Mr Allen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about my Committee, which has members from all parts of the House. I thought that he was going to steal one of my best lines—that it is quite an achievement for the Government to get the League Against Cruel Sports and the Countryside Alliance on the same side and working in unison. He makes a serious point: there are people out there who can help us to make a contribution, and they appeared before us as witnesses, but that process has been completely ignored. At least we were able to do some serious work on the lobbying aspect of the Bill. We were able to conjure a consensus between people who came from different ends of the spectrum, and that could have been the first step in making the lobbying aspect of the Bill effective, but it has been cast aside.

The sad thing is that what has happened throws back in people’s faces—including even the Prime Minister—the contention that lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen. As a parliamentarian, I want to help the Prime Minister sort that issue out. It was in the coalition agreement, and both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats pledged to do this, as we all did. So why are we not using the processes of the House to reach a result that will stick for a long, long time?

13:00

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I agree that the Government have timetabled this Bill in an entirely shoddy and inappropriate manner; that concern has been expressed across the House. The previous Labour Government got up to similar antics, and it is simply not appropriate for parliamentarians to allow Governments to pursue the lowest common denominator in this way. I hope that we will pursue this issue as parliamentarians to ensure that Bills are tabled in the proper manner that the hon. Gentleman has described.

[Mr Allen]

It is a fact of life that Oppositions become Governments and rapidly leave behind their commitments to help the House to become part of the democratic process. I urge the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the coalition parties’ manifesto processes are clear about the changes that we want to see.

We are now being given only four hours in which to discuss these matters. There was an unprecedented pause in the legislation, albeit only for a few weeks, to allow proper discussion to take place in the second Chamber, yet we are now being given only four hours in which to synthesise that work that happened in the other place. No one would argue that that is appropriate or adequate. We have not even had a chance to discuss the timetable, as the programme motion was not debateable. We have had no chance even to make this point, other than through the generosity of the Chair in allowing me to talk about it now. Technically, the House has not been allowed to debate the inadequacy of having only four hours for debate at the end of this Bill.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I have a petition here from 190,553 people who object to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend think that those people will have any understanding of why the Leader of the House is forcing this business through in less than four hours?

[Mr Allen]

People out there do not have any such understanding, but I will go further and say that even some of the charities and voluntary sector organisations involved do not understand it. Indeed, I will go even closer to home and ask how many Members of Parliament understand how this process has actually worked over the past 24 hours. Do they understand how a Bill can be debated in the second Chamber and then pushed back here and given two working hours for consideration of the work that the other place has carried out at some length? That work, as well as the work of the commission that was set up by people who are annoyed about this process, and all the evidence taking have all gone by the board.

This process is holding the House in contempt, and that needs to be recognised not just by the people in the lobbying industry but by the more than 10,000 organisations under the umbrella of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Those organisations come from all parts of the political spectrum. I imagine that every Member in the Chamber is associated with a trust, charity or voluntary organisation that will feel the impact of the Bill. Those organisations have been treated in a way that we should not regard as acceptable.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the NCVO. The sister organisation in Wales is the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which has recently pointed out that while there could be two elections in England over a two-year span, Wales and Scotland could have three sets of elections in such a period owing to the devolution arrangements. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem could therefore be much worse there?

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely on the mark, as he normally is on these matters.

This situation is completely unacceptable. It makes the case very eloquently for the establishment of a House business Committee, but I am sorry to say that that proposal has been rejected by those on the Government Front Bench, even though it was in the coalition agreement to which the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats signed up. The Labour Opposition also signed up to the proposal, but it will not now be implemented. I cannot imagine any meeting of such a Committee, with parliamentary Back-Bench representation, that would not have identified this particular issue as an unacceptable way in which to treat the House. It would not veto the agenda for the next week, or anything ludicrous of that kind; it would raise such matters with the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in private and say that there must be a better way of considering this kind of legislation. The Wright Committee proposed the setting up of a House business Committee, and its absence reflects badly on those who promised to bring that forward within the first three years of this Government.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As a fellow cricketer and someone who also believes in proper parliamentary scrutiny, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. However, we have only two hours left, so will he now tell us his views on the amendments? Otherwise, we will have no time to discuss what the people outside want us to talk about.

[Mr Allen]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point, and I hope that he and the House will forgive me, but it is important that people outside the House should understand why we do not have a full day to discuss this and why we have not had two days to consider the key issues. Those people who wish to campaign on the Bill did not know how to respond or how to contact their Member of Parliament. They did not know what the issues might be.

I came into the Chamber rather hurriedly this morning because, even minutes before I was due to get to my feet to speak, I did not know which matters might be votable today. I did not know which amendments might be discussed. I have been in this place for 26 years, and I know my way round the Order Paper, but even experienced parliamentarians did not know exactly how today’s business would be conducted, or how the amendments might be grouped. Mr Speaker, you have had a discussion about that within the past couple of hours. How is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), for example, who cares about their charity and wants to get hold of the right hon. Gentleman, supposed to know what is going on? They might have wanted to ask him to listen to their points and to make a case on behalf of the local charity that they represent.

However, I shall take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s chiding, in order to pre-empt your own, Mr Speaker. I shall move on to the specific matter of the amendments that I tabled on behalf of my all-party Select Committee late yesterday, not long before the debate began today. Our main amendment to this part of the Bill, on lobbying, is amendment (a). It deals with the question of who is being lobbied. Our original report found that it was ludicrous not to include senior civil servants among those who should declare clearly, honestly and transparently that they had been lobbied.

I remember the debates on this matter well; members of all parties contributed to them. I will not go over that ground again, other than to say that a number of us—myself included—said that people never sought to lobby a permanent secretary. We noted that although getting in to see a permanent secretary involved a feat of genius, it would actually not do much good. That was because the permanent secretary would take the matter to the director-general who, in turn, would go to the desk officer. If people want to get something done—on nursery care, for example, or on cycle lanes—they do not go to the permanent secretary. They certainly do not go to them if big money is involved. They of course go to senior civil servants, which my Select Committee defined as being at grade 5 and above, and in our view those senior civil servants should be included in the group that is required to make a declaration in respect of being lobbied. That is self-evident and sensible. Excluding the very people who are lobbied the most in the Government will render the Bill an absolute laughing stock. We all know the truth of this matter.

[Stephen Doughty]

I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s point. Speaking as a former special adviser and a lobbyist for a charity, I can confirm that senior civil servants are exactly the kind of people that I was speaking to, although even special advisers get very little time with permanent secretaries. My hon. Friend is making his point well, and I hope that the Government are listening to what he is saying.

[Mr Allen]

A number of expert witnesses from the lobbying business came to see the Committee, at our request, and I will read a quote from just one. The Whitehouse Consultancy, a public affairs company, said:

“Our clients…want to develop relationships with other officials and policymakers, such as those at Director-General level or below”.

That view was repeated over and over again; I have a list here, but I will not bore you by reading it into the record, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend makes a succinct point: those people—the doers; the people who are going to write those background papers and feed a yes or no recommendation to a Minister—perhaps even above Ministers, and certainly above permanent secretaries, should be first on the list.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I join other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have thanked my hon. Friend and his Committee for the excellent work they have done. In his examination of the type of senior civil servants who are lobbied, did he note the reports of the lobbying on fracking and shale gas of senior officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change? Apparently, they discussed, over hospitality and via e-mail, lines to take, so that the same solid response came from government—from senior civil servants—and the shale gas companies. That is a perfect example of what he is talking about.

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend has been persistent in raising these matters in the House, and I bow to her expertise on them. I am sure that we all have particular things that have interested us as Members over the years where it has been essential that we have such access. I have no problem in listing those things, and I hope that my constituents might be impressed if I were to do so. On the basis of honesty and transparency, all those things should certainly be clear for everyone to see, to make sure that our government is conducted without even the slightest whiff of impropriety.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I give way to one of the exceptionally hard-working members of my Select Committee.

[Mark Durkan]

Further to the previous intervention, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we have also had recent reports about the Government’s change on minimum alcohol pricing, which showed that layered lobbying on a corporate basis by that industry had been going on? Surely the amendment he has tabled on behalf of the Committee would at least bring into the Bill’s scope all the civil servants who were part of that layered lobbying. Unfortunately, it would not bring into the Bill’s scope the very people who were doing that lobbying.

[Mr Allen]

If we had more than four hours and we could use the four hours on only this amendment, I imagine I could provoke every Member in the Chamber to recall a similar story or experience to that of my Select Committee colleague and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). We are all aware of such things and they are legion. If we look back at our debates in Committee and on Report, we see that people from all parts of the House made the exact same points.

I would like to press the amendment to a vote, as is appropriate. I do not anticipate that we will win on this one. I imagine that those who support the Select Committee would win handsomely were there to be a secret ballot. The rational arguments for including senior civil servants are missed only by the Government Front-Bench team; they are not missed by Back Benchers and members of other parties. With great optimism, therefore, I await the Deputy Leader of the House accepting my amendment, in which case there will be no need for a vote. I understand that the Government have moved on including special advisers, and I will listen with great care about whether they will indeed be included and how that may be done. I would welcome that, and I hope it will mean that we do not have a vote on the matter.

A lot of amendments are on the Order Paper, but I hope that we will spend most of the four hours discussing the annoyance and anger that is out there about this flawed and failing Bill, rather than spending all our time walking round in circles in the Lobby being beaten by the same number. I am afraid that this Bill and part 1 of it do not do what they were meant to do—what they said on the tin. They do not deal with what the public felt outraged about; they do not help to bring lobbying under control. They do not do what the House felt was appropriate in terms of bringing lobbying back into the mainstream. They do not do what all three parties committed to at the last general election, which was to regulate lobbying effectively. They do not do what the Prime Minister said in respect of addressing the potential for the “next big scandal” in British politics.

On that basis, unless I hear good news from the Deputy Leader of the House, I would ask colleagues in all parts of the House to register their protest, not least at how we have been treated in our discussions on the Bill, by voting for the amendment that stands in my name as Chair of the Select Committee. I hope we will get the Government, even at this point, to see sense.

13:09

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I ask colleagues to disagree with Lords amendment 1, and to support amendments (b) and (c) in lieu. I hope the House will also be persuaded to disagree with amendment (a), which was tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). I wish to say at the outset that I cannot agree with his comments about the lack of consultation. If he looks at what has happened since this Bill got under way and, for example, at the ministerial quarterly reports, he will see the extent of consultation that has taken place on the Bill. The fact that many of today’s amendments have been the subject of consultation in this place and in the House of Lords, and have reflected to a great extent the concerns expressed by a range of organisations, underlines the fact that substantial consultation has taken place on this subject. Indeed, many of those changes are inspired by his Committee.

I must also say that repeatedly stating that charities will not be able to campaign on policy matters, as we have heard Opposition Members do, does not make it true.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

Simply repeating it again and again does not make it true. The changes we have made to the registration thresholds indicate our willingness to move on this subject.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

On the process by which we are having to deal with this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Parliament is being made a laughing stock by the fact that we are trying to concertina such a complex issue into such a short time? Does that not undermine any credibility this Government had? They are supposed to be championing the big society, but they are trying to muzzle it, both in the Bill and in the process they are setting out here today.

[Tom Brake]

First, it is not unusual for things to proceed at this pace. I should also point out that what we are supposed to be focusing on in this debate is a limited number of amendments that have come from the Lords and some amendments in lieu that the Government are proposing—that is today’s subject. I do not want to make too long a speech, because I can see from the requests for interventions that a lot of hon. Members want to speak on this group.

Amendment 1 was moved on Report in the House of Lords by Lord Tyler and was agreed to by a majority of 18 votes. The amendment would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and permanent secretaries. We debated this issue ourselves when discussing the amendments tabled in Committee by the Opposition, the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and other Members. During that debate, the Government made it clear that the register was designed to complement the existing government transparency regime and to address a specific problem.

It may help if I first remind the House of the context for the part 1 provisions—the unique open government context in which they have been developed. Transparency is at the heart of this Government’s agenda. We are opening up government and the public sector, and by doing so we are enhancing transparency, participation and accountability. [Interruption.] The noises from Opposition Members need to be quiescent for just a couple of seconds because I want to outline the things the Government have done since 2010 to open up transparency. We have published unprecedented amounts of information about decision makers and decision making. Since 2010, we have proactively and regularly published the following details: Ministers’ private interests; Ministers and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations or individuals; Ministers and special advisers’ meetings with media proprietors, editors, and senior executives; all gifts of hospitality received by Ministers, permanent secretaries and special advisers; ministerial overseas travel; all official and charity receptions held at No. 10; and those who have received hospitality at Chequers and Chevening.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain when the Government will release the vital information on exchanges between President Bush and the then Prime Minister of this country as it is delaying the Chilcot inquiry and has delayed it for the past three years?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman must be familiar with the Chilcot inquiry website, so he can access that. I am sure that Mr Speaker will not allow me to take this debate on to the subject of Chilcot when it is very much a focused debate on the amendments under consideration.

The list I have just read out is impressive in terms of opening up transparency. In addition, we have published the names, job titles and pay bands of all civil servants earning more than £80,000, and the job titles and pay bands of all other roles. Such initiatives are shining the light of transparency on to the actions of decision makers and are empowering citizens to hold politicians and public bodies to account. Despite being recognised leaders in open government, we are not complacent. We heard from colleagues in both Houses that there is more we can do to extend further transparency in Government and the public sector. We listened carefully to those concerns and, in response to my colleague, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, we made a commitment to improving the accessibility of Government transparency information. Specifically, the Government committed to ensuring better co-ordination of the publication of datasets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page.

We will improve the access to and the presentation of that data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also seek to ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting and to include the subject of meetings. Finally we will ensure that the Government.UK transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Surely the Minister recognises that the first port of call for many lobbyists is not the Minister or the permanent secretary but the political adviser in that Department or other civil servants. Is that not the gaping hole in this lobbying Bill? It does nothing to tackle the real lobbying that is taking place.

[Tom Brake]

The Government are focusing on Ministers and permanent secretaries because of their key decision-making roles. Ultimately, they make the decisions in Government. We will of course come to the issue of special advisers.

The measures will further improve the transparency of decision makers. It is equally important that the actions of those who seek to influence decision makers are also transparent. We have been clear that lobbying plays a vital role in policy making, ensuring that Ministers hear a full range of views from those who will be affected by Government decisions, particularly in the more participative and open policy-making environment that we are promoting. It is crucial that the fluency of this dialogue is protected.

[Barbara Keeley]

Did the Minister not hear the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) about recent reports based on freedom of information requests of senior civil servants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change meeting lobbyists from the shale gas industry to give them lines to take? I am talking about hospitality, meetings and e-mails. That is not balanced; that is not hearing both sides of the argument. If that is the relationship between DECC civil servants and the shale gas companies, does the Minister not understand that there is no balance in that whatever?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I am not aware of the details to which the hon. Lady has referred. Again, I restate the fact that this is about ensuring there is transparency around the people who make the decisions in Government, and that is perfectly appropriate.

By publishing details of Ministers’ and permanent secretaries’ meetings with external organisations and individuals, we have enhanced the transparency of that dialogue, without diminishing its vibrancy. There is one element of the dialogue, however, that remains potentially hidden and that is when organisations or individuals make communications to Ministers and permanent secretaries via consultant lobbyists. That is because it is not always clear which third-party interests are being represented by such lobbyists. The provisions for a statutory register of consultant lobbyists provided for by part 1 of the Bill address that specific problem. They will identify the interests represented by consultant lobbyists by requiring them to disclose details of their clients on a publicly available register.

There has been some criticism of the Government’s proposals for a register, but there has been no consensus on what should replace it. I recognise that some in this place have suggested that the scope of the register should be broader to capture all those who communicate with Government and require them to disclose extensive information regarding their activities and finances. There has, however, been no clear articulation of the problem that such proposals would address.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Having chided Opposition Members for complaining about the lack of time, saying that they should concentrate on the actual amendment, perhaps the Minister himself could come to the amendment rather than reprising his Second Reading speech.

[Tom Brake]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that that is precisely what I am doing. The failure to make the case for a higher-regulatory model has meant that neither House felt it appropriate to extend the scope of the Government’s provisions. That is not to say, however, that each place has not made very real contributions to ensuring that we deliver robust and effective provisions for a statutory register of lobbyists. Following the recommendations of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Standards and Privileges Committee, the provisions were amended to ensure absolute clarity regarding the register’s application to parliamentarians. We also amended the Bill to ensure that the register does not impose disproportionate burdens on the smallest businesses. Further amendments were made in the House of Lords and many of those reflected discussion and debate within this Chamber.

Lord Tyler’s, amendment, which was agreed to by just 18 votes, would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers. I understand why he was seeking to make that change. However, it is the coalition Government’s view that it would dissociate the register from the clearly articulated problem that it is designed to address. The amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee would further detach the register from its objective, by extending the scope of the register to those who lobby senior civil servants.

The register is designed to complement the system by which Ministers and permanent secretaries publish their meetings and to address a specific and discrete problem within that context. Our view is that to extend the scope of the register to other public officials would provide no appreciable benefits because they are not required to publish their diaries.

Yes, we accept that lobbyists make communications to Government other than directly to Ministers and permanent secretaries, but ultimately it is Ministers and permanent secretaries who are responsible for the decisions taken within their Departments. Lord Tyler suggests that the register should apply to those who lobby special advisers. Special advisers may provide advice, but they are not decision makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their Departments; and it is therefore only right that Ministers, not special advisers, are the main focus of the meeting reporting system and the register.

[Luciana Berger]

The Minister will know as he has been in this place a while—I am a relatively new MP; I have been here only since May 2010—that when we see a Minister, as we often do in Portcullis House or around this building, they often have, on their right arm, a special adviser. That special adviser is with them morning, noon and night, and also has meetings in the evenings and at weekends. The idea that we can dissociate that special adviser from the Minister is frankly ridiculous. I cannot understand the Minister’s rationale.

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I have not finished my comments in relation to special advisers. There is an amendment in lieu to which I am about to refer. Ultimately, whether or not there are contacts with the special adviser, it is not the special adviser who signs off the decision; it is the Minister.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

The description I would use is glued at the hip. Coming to this place as an outsider, my observation is that special advisers are absolutely key to decision making. If our aim is genuinely to improve transparency, we will miss an important opportunity if we do not include special advisers.

13:29

[Tom Brake]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that I have not finished commenting on special advisers, so perhaps I should pursue that. There might be further interventions, but let us wait and see.

Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person

“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.

The Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes it clear that they may not authorise the expenditure of public funds, exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the state or otherwise exercise any statutory or prerogative power.

As the code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than would be available from the permanent civil service. I must restate this: unlike a Minister or permanent secretary, a special adviser is not a decision maker, even if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) says, they are attached to the Minister’s hip. We are aware, however, that there are those in this House who agree—[Interruption.] Members need to listen.

We are aware that some Members agree with the conclusion of the House of Lords that communications with special advisers should be captured. Indeed, many Liberal Democrat peers and Members of Parliament agree that they should be captured, but no amendments were tabled to extend the scope of the register in such a way when the issue was discussed in this House. In the House of Lords, Lord Tyler’s amendment was agreed to, but by a small majority.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that Lynton Crosby would be covered both by the code of conduct and the amendment that the Government have tabled today?

[Tom Brake]

That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. If he were involved in a firm of consultant lobbyists, absolutely, he would have to register as a consultant lobbyist.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain the position of a senior official who happens to chair a committee or run a quango that has decision-making powers?

[Tom Brake]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the third-party register of lobbyists focuses specifically on Ministers or permanent secretaries. That is what is before us today.

We are not persuaded that the calls to capture communications with special advisers are sufficiently strong to justify amending the Bill in the manner that Lord Tyler proposes. We are, however, aware that the discussion about including such communications within the scope of the register is likely to continue. We therefore propose as a contingency an amendment in lieu that would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by clause 2 so that it could subsequently, if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they were persuaded of the case for doing so without the need for primary legislation. It should therefore assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expansion of the scope if it is justified in future.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us how many groups or organisations have met the permanent secretary at his Department in relation to this Bill, so that we get a flavour of how an effective a route that is?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Lady an answer to that question immediately. However, if she wants, she can do what a number of newspapers have done when they have produced so-called scoops. They have gone through the quarterly ministerial reports, looked at the meetings registered and added up the number of meetings with the permanent secretary. That information is there if she wants to pursue the question.

[Mark Durkan]

On the question of the definition of “special adviser”, will the definition the Deputy Leader of the House has cited include the new class of policy advisers who, we are told, will be “specialist” rather than “special” advisers and will be appointed by Ministers to move policy along in significant areas?

[Tom Brake]

I have set out the definition. I am afraid I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will see whether they would be included and get back to him.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The argument so far has concentrated on any lobbying of the final decision maker, but does the Deputy Leader of the House not agree that the process of eventually making the decision is equally important? That starts with senior civil servants and goes through special advisers, and is as important as any lobbying of the final decision maker.

[Tom Brake]

I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me to require the Government to publish all the internal workings of government, but that is not done by any Government. My view is that the Government’s proposed amendments in lieu will be a pragmatic response to the Lords’ concerns.

Let me turn to the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I should remind the House that we have discussed the matter and that no relevant amendments were moved. Similar amendments were moved in the House of Lords, and the extension of the register to public officials such as civil servants was rejected by a substantial majority of 51. As I have outlined, the register is intended to complement the existing Government transparency regime. Both systems are intended to enhance the transparency of key decision makers—Ministers and permanent secretaries—and those who communicate with them.

[Mark Durkan]

It is somewhat unfair of the Minister to rely on the fact that no amendments to expand the scope of the register to include special advisers were moved in this House. Many amendments were tabled that would have extended the scope to include special advisers and senior civil servants, and it was only the exigencies of time that meant that Members did not move them, as they would have lost time for debate by calling a Division.

[Tom Brake]

Had we had the opportunity to discuss amendments on civil servants, for instance, we could have considered the impact, the scale—that is, how many thousands of civil servants it would have included—and the potential costs associated with such an extension. In some ways, I would have welcomed that.

As we have previously outlined, there is little value in extending the scope of the register to those who are not required to publish their meeting details. We are not persuaded that the introduction of meeting reporting obligations for senior civil servants is appropriate. Such a system would result in an unnecessary, disproportionate and unhelpful administrative burden and the cost to the public purse could not be justified in the light of the limited transparency benefits that would be achieved.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Given that amendments (b) and (c) were made available only at 11 o'clock this morning, it would be really helpful if the House could understand the differences between the proposals of the amendments in lieu and those in Lords amendment 1. The House deserves a clear explanation.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. The clear explanation is that our amendments in lieu provide an opportunity for such a change at a point in the future, if the debate leads to a consensus on proceeding with the reporting of special advisers’ meetings. That is what we are facilitating. Who knows? A future Labour Government might well have to make that decision, and it would be interesting to know whether they would want to take it.

There are about 5,000 senior civil servants in the UK. Is there really public interest in seeing the details of all their meetings with external organisations? [Interruption.] Surely the huge costs that that would involve are hardly justified. I heard a number of Members saying “Yes” from a sedentary position, but I wonder if any of them have costed the possible impact and the effect that such a change would have on the activities of those 5,000 senior civil servants. I am waiting—

[Stephen Doughty]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

This might be the intervention that will confirm the cost.

[Stephen Doughty]

No, it will not be. The Deputy Leader of the House spoke earlier about the decision being made “if and when” Ministers were persuaded. What criteria would he use to decide “if and when” he was persuaded?

[Tom Brake]

We would need consensus within the coalition Government that we wanted to proceed in such a way. As I stated, a number of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament and peers would like to see us proceed in such a way, but we are not in a position to do that and that is why, if the position changes, we are facilitating either this Government or a future Government in taking such a decision without primary legislation. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not use his intervention to outline the cost of extending the provision to 5,000 civil servants, which now seems to be the official policy position of the Opposition.

[Mr Allen]

May I again commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman, a sensible and capable Front Bencher, on being lumbered with the Bill? I am sincerely sorry that he has been landed with this—I hope that it does not influence his long-term career prospects.

Making legislation on the hoof may allow us to repent at leisure. I would like the House to understand what was added to the amendment paper last night, because I do not understand it as much as I would like. Is the crux of amendment (b) on special advisers the word “may”—regulations may be made some time in future—which does not need to be included in the Bill, as the Government can introduce new legislation to do that, or is it a commitment that, with some certainty, that provision will be introduced in the near future? If it is the former, many of us would find it difficult to support. If it is the latter, some of us would be sympathetic towards what the Deputy Leader of the House is saying.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not sure that I can add much to what I said earlier, other than that this is about providing an order-making power to a Minister to enable the inclusion of special advisers in the terms of the third-party register at some point in the future, which could be the day after Royal Assent, if that was desired. We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them.

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order, rather than a point of frustration.

[Mr Allen]

It is a point of order. In view of the response from the Deputy Leader of the House, I shall probably not press my amendment to a vote, so that the House can vote on the issue of special advisers. It is not satisfactory not to regulate that in some shape or form.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but my initial suspicion was nevertheless valid. It was a point of great interest and it is on the record, but it was not a point of order. Never mind—he has made it.

[Tom Brake]

I need to make some progress, as we do not have much time for the debate.

We should streamline public services, not impose additional burdens on them. We should provide the public with relevant and useful information, not overwhelm them with huge volumes of unhelpful and extraneous data. The House accepted these arguments in our debates on part 1, and did not seek to extend the scope of the measure in the manner proposed by hon. Members. We should respond to the Lords amendments constructively by proposing an amendment in lieu in respect of the proposed extension to capture special advisers, but we should not seek further to extend the scope in a manner that the Lords have specifically rejected.

Briefly, Lords amendments 2 and 3 deal with recipients of communications. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to clarify and provide greater consistency in the terminology used in relation both to the recipients of the lobbying communications and to the communications themselves. Lords amendment 4 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the term, “Minister of the Crown” does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the two bodies of persons, the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are

“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.

The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both those entities, however, are bodies of persons with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, the Lords amendments remove those bodies from the definition, and in doing so provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.

Lords amendments 5, 6 and 7 deal with the code of conduct. In Committee in both Houses, the Opposition tabled amendments that required lobbyists to sign up to a statutory code of conduct and face sanctions for any breaches. As we exposed during the debates in both Houses, the Opposition’s amendments were based on a miscomprehension of the role of codes, both statutory and voluntary, in the regulation of lobbying. While the Opposition suggested that such codes are in existence and operate successfully in other jurisdictions, we have not been able to identify any international precedent for the type of code that has been proposed. Furthermore, the Opposition could propose just one provision for inclusion in that code: a prohibition on inappropriate financial relationships between lobbyists and parliamentarians, which is unnecessary, given the fact that there are parliamentary codes, as well as laws, on bribery and corruption. Once the shortcomings of the Opposition’s amendments were demonstrated, both Houses were able confidently to reject them.

My Lords—not my Lords—the objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency.

[Mr Speaker]

The Deputy Leader of the House knows something that we do not.

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not anticipate a sudden transformation of the House into the other place.

The objective of the part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. During the debates, however, the Government heard calls from both Houses on the importance of ensuring that the statutory register complemented the existing self-regulatory regime. That reiterated the message of inquiries by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. The self-regulatory regime is the mechanism by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry. We are grateful to Members in both Houses for their thoughtful suggestions as to how we can best ensure that the register complements the regime and, after careful consideration and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct.

13:45

As such, we made amendments in the House of Lords that would require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code could be accessed. The House of Lords welcomed the amendments, recognising that such a provision would enhance the transparency and scrutiny of registered lobbyists. Indeed, the Opposition withdrew their amendments on the matter, persuaded that they were unnecessary.

I was therefore surprised to see that the Opposition in this House have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 7. Amendment (a) is very similar to the amendment that was withdrawn by the Opposition’s colleagues in the Lords. First, I should point out that amendment (a) in lieu of lords amendment 7 is defective and internally inconsistent, and that its effect in uncertain. It would completely undermine amendments that we have made in this regard. Those amendments are supported by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and have been approved by the House of Lords. I imagine that the Opposition’s intention in tabling amendment (a) is to require everyone undertaking the business of consultant lobbying to subscribe to a voluntary code of conduct. We have previously explained why such a provision is unnecessary and inappropriate, but I will do so again. Requiring lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will expose those who do not abide by the ethical principles that are essential to the integrity of the industry. It is not the Government’s intention, however, to introduce a high-regulation, burdensome regime whereby the registrar is responsible for monitoring and enforcing subscription to, and compliance with, codes of conduct.

The Government are confident that the requirement on lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will increase transparency, enhance scrutiny, and drive up standards. The Government amendments made in the Lords ensure that that is the case; the Opposition amendments in this House would undermine it.

Lords amendments 8,10 and 11 deal with notices. They are minor amendments and improve drafting to ensure consistency in the language used in the provisions relating to the cancellation of an information notice or the variation or cancellation of a penalty notice. Lords amendments 8 and 10 increase the procedural protection for recipients of information or penalty notices by requiring the registrar to serve in accordance with clause 25(2) any notice to vary and/or cancel such notices on the person on whom the original notice was served. By ensuring consistency of terminology, these amendments will further clarify the detail of the provisions relating to the cancellation and/or variation of the notices and ensure consistency with approaches to such matters in other legislation.

Lords amendment 9 is a minor amendment that clarifies the fact that any individual, not just employees, can commit the offence of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying while unregistered if their organisation is unregistered. The amendment removes any ambiguity as to whether the provisions apply to individuals who undertake consultant lobbying in the course of a separate business, but are not employees of that consultant lobbying business—for example, contractors. It therefore ensures that the application of the provisions in that respect are absolutely clear.

Lords amendment 12 is a minor amendment that clarifies and ensures consistency in the language used in the provision in clause 21 allowing the registrar both to revise and to replace the guidance that he or she has published, including replacement guidance.

Lords amendment 13 is minor amendment that clarifies the fact that the charges associated with registration will be set to ensure that the sums received offset the total costs of the registrar’s activities. Treasury guidance requires that if a charging regime recoups costs other than those directly associated with the service provided—in this instance, the keeping of the register—the position should be made explicitly clear to Parliament. This amendment reiterates that the charges provided for in clause 22 will be set to recover the total cost of the registrar’s activities, including those that are not directly connected with the keeping of the register, such as enforcement activity.

Amendment 14 is a minor amendment that removes provisions in clause 22 in relation to the netting-off of moneys from the Consolidated Fund for the funding of the registrar. Such funding will instead be arranged administratively between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

Amendment 15 relates to regulation-making powers and is tabled by the Government to fulfil their commitment to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to part 1. The Government are grateful to the Committee for its thoughtful consideration of the delegated powers in part 1 and have accepted the Committee's recommendations in relation to this part in their entirety. The amendment therefore alters the part to require that regulations under clauses 4(5) or 5(4), the first regulations to be made under clauses 11(3) and 17(3), and any regulation that amends or modifies the provisions of the Bill must be made by the affirmative procedure. By doing so, Parliament will be provided with the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny of any regulations made under the powers in those clauses. I reiterate the Government's thanks to the Committee for its detailed report on this part.

Amendments 101 and 102 are minor amendments that clarify the position in relation to employees who make lobbying communications as part of their employment. Specifically, amendment 101 provides that employees will not be considered as carrying on the “business of consultant lobbying” if they make lobbying communications as an employee in the course of a business carried on by their employer. The amendment therefore clarifies that in-house lobbyists are not captured by the part 1 provisions and that it is the consultant lobbying firm, rather than its employees, that is required to register in respect of any lobbying activity carried out by it or its employees. As Ministers have made clear throughout the Bill’s passage, the register is designed to address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists. Conversely, it is always clear whose interests are being represented by in-house lobbyists—those of their employer.

Amendment 102 provides, first, that where an individual makes a communication in the course of the business of another, both the individual and that other business or person make that communication. As such, the amendment ensures that the client on whose behalf consultant lobbying communications are made is always declared on the register, even if that communication is undertaken by a sub-contractor that the consultant lobbying firm has engaged. The amendment also provides that if the individual happens to be an employee—as opposed to a contractor, for example—the employee is not to be regarded as making the communication on behalf of their employer, but rather only on behalf of their employer's client, reflecting the fact that in-house lobbyists and employees of consultant lobbying firms are not required to register.

Amendment 103 is a minor amendment intended to remove any ambiguity as to the maximum period of a re-appointment term of the registrar, which is three years. An individual may be re-appointed twice, and the maximum period for each of those terms is three years.

I look forward to the discussion on these amendments. The Government are confident that our proposed response to Lord Tyler's amendment is sensible and constructive and will facilitate agreement between the two Houses. Equally, we are confident that the Government amendments agreed in the Lords will further enhance the part 1 provisions and ensure the delivery of a robust registration system that will enhance the transparency of consultant lobbying.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Opposition share the astonishment of charities, lobbyists, campaigners and members of the public at the way in which the Bill has been handled. Until this morning, we had been led to understand that the Government were intent on reversing the progress that had been made in the other place. This morning, when the list of amendments was published, we thought that they had conceded on special advisers. In fact, they appeared to have got themselves into a position where they were disagreeing with themselves. After listening to the Deputy Leader of the House for 47 minutes of the two hours that we have been given to debate this important part of the Bill, I, like the Chair of the Select Committee, am none the wiser as to what the Government propose. From the interventions of Members on both sides of the House, it appears that the Minister himself is not entirely sure what he is proposing either.

It is important that we understand how we arrived at this state of extreme confusion. Clause 2—indeed part 1 of the Bill—was drawn so narrowly that none of the lobbying scandals that gave rise to the Bill would have been caught by it. The Bill was massacred in the other place, and rightly so. The decision to include special advisers was made by a decent margin, and prompted 30 Liberal Democrat peers to vote against their own Government. There have been three defeats in the other place on fundamental aspects of the Bill, and it is important that Ministers and the House ask why. This is a lesson in how not to introduce legislation. There was a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, and no expert witnesses were allowed to be called. After three years of silence on this issue, proposals landed out of the blue just two days before the summer recess. We had a two-paragraph response from the Government to a well-considered Select Committee report. We had the spectacle of a Government refusing the request from across civil society to pause the Bill for long enough to make what was branded “a dog’s breakfast” by the Chair of an influential Select Committee into a workable and effective piece of legislation. The speed is frankly ridiculous.

The Government were still suffering defeat in the other place yesterday evening. In its report written last night and published this morning, the Select Committee said:

“The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates a contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in…parliamentary scrutiny.”

Baroness Williams said that the gap between the Bill leaving the other place and arriving here was “frankly ludicrous”. Of the two hours that we have to debate this important part of the Bill, the Minister took 47 minutes, and we are none the wiser. Like hundreds of constituents who have e-mailed me over recent weeks, I have reached the conclusion that this is a Government who have very little commitment to democracy and are not willing to be challenged.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Why does my hon. Friend think that the Government are so determined to push this through at this ridiculous pace?

[Lisa Nandy]

That is a good question. Those of us who listened to the Minister earlier are still grappling with how on earth the Government could have got themselves into this position.

Unlike the Minister, we have been consistent in our support for extending the definition of lobbying to include special advisers. Throughout this shambolic process, Ministers have been unable to find a single good reason why that should not take place.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

We can understand why the Government are in a muddle, because there is no public support for the Bill. However, there is public support for something to be done about lobbyists, rather than attacking trade unions all the time.

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. I would simply add to my hon. Friend’s comments the voice of many charities, which quite simply cannot understand why they, as well as trade unions and grass-roots campaigners, are the target for this Bill, when it lets off the hook powerful vested interests.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that in the other place Liberal Democrat peers sought to exclude and exempt from the Bill all charities, yet that move was resisted by her colleagues in the other place?

[Lisa Nandy]

And by a majority of the charitable sector as well. The reason for that is that the Bill, as the Chair of the Select Committee has said, is a dog’s breakfast, which is so fundamentally flawed that it should be put on hold, with sufficient time for it to be thoroughly revised. If we had had pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation in the first place, we would not be in this situation.

Ministers suggested that it would be practically too difficult to extend these provisions to special advisers. But as the Deputy Leader of the House just said in his long contribution, the Government already publish information about special advisers. They publish details of gifts and hospitality received, and details of meetings with newspaper and other media proprietors’ editors and senior executives on a quarterly basis. There is no obvious reason why this could not be extended further. The truth is that there is no political will to make this happen. Ministers have consistently been told by many of us that this really matters. Many of the scandals that this Government have been caught up in have involved Government advisers, not the Minister or the permanent secretary, whom the Deputy Leader of the House is so keen that the Bill should cover. Let us take the example of Fred Michel, an in-house lobbyist for News Corp who was exchanging written communications with Adam Smith, then special adviser to the then Culture Secretary. In e-mails and text messages exposed by Lord Justice Leveson, it became clear that that was entirely inappropriate, yet the Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that no transparency requirements will be extended to such advisers or to such in-house lobbyists.

14:00

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Many of us have been struck by how upset and concerned small charities and campaigning organisations are that the Bill targets them but not the powerful and influential.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of that sector, is absolutely correct. She shares my bewilderment at the Government’s target in the Bill.

As Lord Tyler made clear when the Bill was considered in another place,

“two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament… would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 29.]

There are 98 special advisers across Whitehall but, as we have learnt through the dialogue with the Deputy Leader of the House today, there are many others who are considered to be advisers and are, like special advisers, the first, if not the only, port of call for lobbyists. As was said earlier, the process of arriving at decision making matters as much as the decision itself.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady is obviously a strong advocate of transparency. One of the things that the Government have asked the Opposition to do, in the interests of transparency, is make available information on meetings that shadow Ministers have. Is that something they will do?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to say that, unlike the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives when they were in opposition, we publish details of meetings on a regular basis. In fact, we are the most transparent Opposition ever. I find it absolutely astonishing that, three and a half years after the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made a commitment to shine a spotlight on the shadowy world of lobbying, the Government have climbed down on all the measures that we have been urging them to accept and the only thing that they can do is challenge us on our shadow ministerial diaries. The Deputy Leader of the House’s own argument was that the Government are responsible for making decisions. My point to him is that the Government are responsible for making decisions, and for the process by which they are made. We would like the measures that we have proposed to be put into the Bill. We can still see no good reason why the Government are resisting those calls.

The issue of special advisers is so important to the House because of the decision that we are being asked to make in less than an hour. I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a series of questions that I have come up with in the last two hours, since the Government decided to table their somewhat bizarre and obscure amendments. First—I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)—what is the difference between what they have tabled and the amendment proposed in the other place? The answer to my hon. Friend appeared to be that the Government are simply kicking it into the long grass. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that that is the case? Is this a guarantee that it will happen? The Government amendment states that the Government “may amend regulations”. Why use “may”?

The Deputy Leader of the House said that there was a need to reach consensus. I can tell him, because, unlike the Government, I have been listening to the clamour outside this place, that there is consensus. In fact, the only people who do not appear to have reached consensus on the issue are sitting on the Government Front Bench. If he looks behind him, I think he will find that many Government Members are as concerned as we are. Are Ministers planning to introduce the proposed measure in regulation? Do they have a time frame for doing so? Why is it not being introduced now? What are the Government worried about? We urgently need to clear up the lack of understanding about the definition of special adviser.

The Government’s amendments refer to the definition in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I asked the Deputy Leader of the House whether Lynton Crosby would be covered by that. Would it cover Adam Smith, Adam Werritty or any other Government adviser who has been involved in the plethora of scandals in recent years? [Interruption.] The Leader of the House is shaking his head and muttering under his breath. I can tell him that this matters not only to Members of the House, but to people outside this place. He will know that because he will have received hundreds of e-mails about the Bill from constituents, as we all have.

My reading of the amendment is that Lynton Crosby would not be covered, because he does not adhere to the special advisers code of conduct. If that is correct, it is a disgrace. The Deputy Leader of the House, in answer to an earlier question, did not seem at all clear about who was covered by his own amendment. I am not surprised, because it was made available to us only at 11 o’clock this morning, and he expects us to vote on it shortly.

The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee asked about senior civil servants. If Ministers are conceding—I am still not sure if they are—that the requirements in the clause can be extended to special advisers, they can also be extended to senior civil servants. It is fairly obvious that permanent secretaries are rarely lobbied, whereas senior civil servants and special advisers are. Ministers do not have to believe me; they can listen to the deputy chair of the Association of Professional Political Consultants, Iain Anderson, who said:

“The vast majority of lobbying is not about meeting Ministers or permanent secretaries”.

The TUC, Spinwatch and other lobbyist groups have made the same point. The truth is that there is no reason at all not to support the sensible amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee.

The Prime Minister used to be fond of quoting US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Perhaps he ought to reflect on something else Mr Justice Brandeis said:

“People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.”

Are the Government afraid of challenge? Let us consider the evidence: the right to challenge cut back through legal aid restrictions, employment tribunal fees and restrictions on migrant appeal rights; an Education Secretary who is fighting the Information Commissioner tooth and nail to block information from the public domain; and a scandal involving the use of private e-mail accounts at the heart of the Department for Education. Only this week Downing street refused to reveal how many guests were hosted at Chequers. The Prime Minister released a partial list that excluded special advisers, officials and, it seems, Conservative party donors. Without the amendment tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee and the important change on special advisers made in the other place, the Bill will do absolutely nothing to increase the transparency of lobbying.

During the 47 minutes of the Deputy Leader of the House’s speech, the only reason that I could understand for why he objects to that sensible measure is his claim that it would impose additional costs and bureaucracy. I simply do not understand how the Government have the nerve to talk about costs and bureaucracy when they are placing unnecessarily restrictive, expensive and onerous burdens on charities, grass-roots campaigners and trade unions, who are the lifeblood of democratic debate in this country.

[Paul Flynn]

That matter was investigated thoroughly in the previous Parliament by the Public Administration Committee. There might be a burden if records and diaries were still kept by clerks working at high desks and writing on parchment with quill pens. We know now, as was made clear in the Committee’s report, that transferring the information is simple, could be done electronically and would cost nothing.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as ever, for his wise words. I absolutely concur. I do not see why it should be difficult in this day and age to put such information on a website.

Before the general election the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, said that lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen. It did happen, repeatedly, and to him. After three years of scandals, we believe that it is shameful that the Bill does absolutely nothing to raise standards in lobbying. As Lord Norton has said,

“the Bill does not enhance transparency and it is not actually about lobbying. It is about lobbyists; it is about status, not about activity.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 13.]

We believe that it should be. That is why the amendment standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends would make it a requirement that registered lobbyists have to abide by a code of conduct.

The Government have conceded that registered lobbyists should record whether they are signed up to the code of conduct in the register, and we welcome that. However, the risk remains that the register will be used by lobbyists and by the public as a means of granting legitimacy to a company and its activities. It is surely no stretch of the imagination to imagine lobbyists using the term “registered” to grant themselves some kind of legitimacy that the public may not understand. Even with the changes made so far, there is nothing to stop lobbyists of any kind getting on to the register—even those who have been convicted of illegal activities. Without the amendment, there is also no mechanism to strike lobbyists off the register.

These views are shared by many in the industry. Gavin Devine, the chief executive of MHP Communications, said in a submission to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee:

“There is a real danger that a register by itself may make the situation worse, since it is likely those on the register will describe themselves as a ‘registered’ or ‘approved’ lobbyists, without having to meet at least some minimum standards. In short, there is a risk that the register will give a kitemark or endorsement to some who do not deserve it”.

We agree with the lobbying industry, campaigners, charities and transparency activists that our proposal would help to set the standard of behaviour. The voluntary code that already governs part of the industry has sanctions for those who breach its provisions. As such, the measure proposed by the Government is a backward step—a register that could legitimise lobbyists without any standards or sanctions whatsoever for bad behaviour. This is a £2 billion industry that has been beset by scandal, to the dismay of many of us, those in wider society, and reputable lobbyists in the industry.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady saying that she does not want part 1 of the Bill and does not want a register of lobbyists?

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely not. This is another aspect of the confusion that exists among Government Members. I say that with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his question. We have consistently called for higher standards, and that is the purpose of our amendment. Indeed, we would have liked to table it earlier so that there was much more opportunity to discuss it with Members in all parts of the House, but unfortunately the unseemly haste with which the Government have pushed this shambolic Bill through meant that we were unable to do so. We want to make sure that all the lobbyists who are registered on the Government’s register adhere to a code of conduct, with proper sanctions for poor behaviour and the ability to strike them off for it.

This Bill was the Government’s opportunity to begin to restore trust in politics, and we would have fully supported them in that mission. When the Bill was published, leading figures from the charity sector wrote to the then Minister, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that they stood ready to work constructively with the Government to try to improve a piece of legislation about which they had genuine concerns. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations said that the pause that was agreed in the House of Lords felt more like “a rebuttal exercise” than a listening exercise. In our view, the Government have shown civil society almost total disdain throughout this process, and in doing so they have shown, yet again, that they are not listening to a voice that they have a duty to hear.

We are unlikely to press our amendment to a vote, for one reason and one only—the severe time constraints that this shambolic process has placed us under. We are deeply concerned about what the Government are now proposing on special advisers and we believe that there is an urgent need to address the many chilling measures that are still in the remaining parts of the Bill, which we have only a couple of hours to debate after we finish debating this part. Ministers should be in no doubt whatsoever that we share the view of the Select Committee that this part of the Bill is unsatisfactory and inadequate and will stifle democratic debate.

On Second Reading, the Leader of the House said,

“we have sought to be the most transparent Government in history.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 169.]

What a joke that now appears. The Government have proved throughout this process that they will not stand up to the wealthy and powerful but prefer instead to target charities, trade unions and grass-roots campaigners. This Bill lies in tatters; it is a shambles. The Government should be ashamed to have introduced something like this to us today. Ministers seem determined not to hear the roar of noise coming from outside this place, but we remain determined that they will hear it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I inform the House that we have just 30 minutes left for this part of a timed debate? A lot of Members are indicating that they would like to speak. May I ask each of you to help each other out so that we can try to get everybody in before the 30 minutes are up?

14:15

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I appreciate the work that the Select Committee chaired by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done. He knows, because I said so on Second Reading, that I agree with his points about pre-legislative scrutiny. I, too, regret the haste with which the Bill has progressed. However, we are where we are, and I will not debate that but crack on as you have asked me to, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On Second Reading, I said that I supported the principles of the Bill but had severe concerns about some areas of detail. In Committee, I tabled amendments, some of which the Government listened to and took on board and others they have looked at again in the other place. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, I have met on numerous occasions and worked closely with my noble Friend Lord Tyler, who has done a power of good to the Bill and improved many of the most unsatisfactory elements by a considerable degree. He has also done an outstanding job in terms of the level of his engagement with the charitable and third sectors. He has worked tirelessly to talk to them, to understand their concerns, and to try to move things forward. When we come to debate the next group of amendments, I will mention many of the things that he has achieved. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire have also worked extremely hard to take on board people’s concerns.

As a result of the amendments that their lordships made and that the Government are accepting, this Bill has been transformed from the difficult Bill that we considered on Second Reading to what we now have before us. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House for the work he has done and for meeting me, colleagues and representatives of the charitable and third sectors several times. Underlying all this is the principle to which I still adhere—that we need much more transparency in lobbying and in the activities of third parties. The Bill is achieving that.

I tabled an amendment in this place covering special advisers though I did not press it. Lord Tyler has put through an excellent amendment. It is no secret that there is a divergence of opinion, if I can put like that, between the two coalition partners. My hon. Friends are very keen to include the amendment, while our partners perceive considerable dangers in doing so and wish to proceed at a rather slower pace. I fully expected the Government to reject my noble Friend’s amendment, but instead they have proposed a compromise that I am willing to accept. As has been evinced by Labour Members, the amendment uses the word “may”. They criticised that, but if we do not put such an enabling clause into a Bill, we cannot take action at a later stage. The amendment admits a concept and a principle that it is important to place in the Bill and it is a considerable step forward.

What does this mean in practice? There are two potential outcomes: first, the coalition partners discuss the measure, decide to implement it, and it is implemented this side of an election—an outcome devoutly to be hoped for but one for which I will not necessarily hold my breath. Secondly, at the next election I have an opportunity to go to the electorate and campaign for it, as would, I believe, all my hon. Friends.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[John Thurso]

I will quickly take two interventions and then no more because I am going to conclude.

[Mark Durkan]

Given that the Deputy Leader of the House was so vehemently dismissive of the case for including special advisers today, what gives the hon. Gentleman any reason to hope that he might be persuaded to do so in future?

[John Thurso]

I have always seen my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House as a very reasonable and persuadable gentleman. I have had many conversations with him, and I believe that he is moving in absolutely the right direction at good speed.

[Mr Allen]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if he substituted the three-letter word “may” with the four-letter word “will”, he would achieve consensus across the House?

[John Thurso]

I am very aware that “shall”—that is probably the word I would look for—would achieve consensus across the House, but not on the Government Benches. I would rather stick with the consensus I have and that will go through than die in a ditch for something that will not.

That is my argument in a nutshell. I urge my hon. Friends to accept the very considerable concession from the Government, which takes us much closer to the objective that I seek to achieve.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

I participate in this debate with great sadness, because within the last hour the funeral has taken place of Terry Butkeraitis, a miners’ leader and community organiser, and a legendary figure at the Glastonbury festival. Terry dedicated his life to the collective organisation of working people and proved that coal miners are as innovative, entrepreneurial and business-savvy as anyone else in society. Without question, Terry would have wanted me and his other friends to be in the Chamber to vote against further attacks on the unions, British values and our democracy.

When the Deputy Leader of the House listed what he claimed were the achievements of the Government’s openness, I thought I heard Terry heckling from that public gallery on high—demanding to know, if this Government are to show openness, where the documents relating to the miners’ strike are. We are still awaiting those documents.

Listening to the Deputy Leader of the House, I wondered whether his inability to explain the Bill in his 47 minutes was because he does not have a special adviser to tell him what it is all about. For some reason, I have never been a special adviser—I cannot understand why I have never been invited to apply for such a position; I do not know where they are advertised—but I have had opportunities over the years to have words with them. Frankly, the idea that any Member believes that special advisers and civil servants around Ministers do not have excessive influence over legislation is nonsense.

I will spare his blushes, because he did it for the right reasons, but one of the ministerial colleagues of the Deputy Leader of the House came up to me just last week and asked me to assist in tabling parliamentary questions to influence his civil servants and doubtless his special advisers to ensure that the legislation came forward more promptly.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What did you say?

[John Mann]

Hansard will prove whether or not I did, and it may even identify the Minister.

Such things are almost incongruous to us in this House; perhaps it is less clear to people outside the Chamber that that is how business operates here. If someone says to me, “I’ve got a great idea to amend legislation. How do I get it through?”, particularly if my party was in power and I therefore knew and could track down the special advisers, the first thing I would say is, “Here’s the list of the people with influence. You’ve got to get to them, because Ministers’ time is so dictated by civil servants—it is deliberately jam-packed—that if you want any serious dialogue, you’ve got to get in first.”

Ministers of course ratify decisions and good ones ensure that their decisions go through, but, frankly, I can think of numerous examples where that has not been the case. Going to special advisers and civil servants, although usually with general ministerial consent—perhaps not from the particular Minister, but from No. 10 Downing street or the Minister’s boss—is precisely how someone can get changes made.

Anyone who has participated in a Public Bill Committee knows that. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) will remember that we sat on the Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill for what seemed like a year. I tabled an amendment about endangered species and wildlife. External bodies wanted it, and the Minister and colleagues from both sides of the Committee were very supportive of it, but the Minister’s response was, “Well, we need to check the details.” The only reason we got the amendment accepted was that we sat down with a special adviser with access to civil servants, and with the civil servants themselves, to clear every dot and comma so that when I got up in Committee, with support from all sides, the Minister said that the Government accepted the principle and would come back with their own wording—strangely, it was identical to mine—and it was later presented as their amendment. That is how it works here. If we are to control these lobbyists, of course the special advisers and civil servants—whoever is in power—have to be included.

I will finish by raising one other issue. I have in my possession documents showing that in recent times a senior, well-known lobbyist has set up a fake company—or a real company, but using a false name and date of birth. How will the Minister deal with that under the Bill? When such a case eventually comes before him and other Ministers, how will they deal with its unethical nature, and how will they respond to the influence of such a lobbyist over the Government? Does he agree that anyone who does that should automatically be prevented from having any access to any Ministers?

[Mark Durkan]

I rise to support amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1 which was tabled on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which I am a member, and to address the specious Government amendments (b) and (c), as well as to deal with the choices presented by the different amendments.

Let us be clear that amendment (a) builds on the amendment made in the other place so that special advisers are rightly caught within the scope of the part 1 of the Bill. Many of us argued for that during earlier stages of the Bill. Contrary to what the Leader of the House implied, we did so seriously; we did not press it to a Division simply because of time constraints and to allow debate on other matters. Only amendment (a) gives us the opportunity to make sure that senior civil servants and special advisers are within the scope of the Bill.

Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 1 almost amount to an act of misdirection by the Government. They may allow people to satisfy themselves that special advisers might be brought within the scope of the Bill. They will, however, leave senior civil servants outside its scope, which is exactly their aim. Of course, they may not even bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Amendment (b) is a fig leaf for the Leader of the House, who tabled it, and a figment in the minds of its supporters: there is no real risk that it will bring special advisers within the scope of the Bill. Those supporting it have clearly set their face against special advisers. Today and on previous occasions, they have given all the arguments why special advisers should not be included. We are fooling ourselves if we think that they will reconsider that issue in a matter of months between now and the election or some other time. That is absolute nonsense, and we would make real fools of ourselves if we fell for it.

Amendment (b) not only says that regulations “may” amend subsection (3) of clause 2, but is worded carefully to provide that

“communications made personally to a special adviser are within that subsection.”

When I see highly qualified and specific wording such as

“made personally to a special adviser”,

I wonder whether it is done deliberately. Perhaps there are all sorts of other forms of communication that can take place with a special adviser. For example, other parties like donors who do not have a direct interest or who are not consultant lobbyists, but who are friends of other businesses or interested parties, could communicate with a special adviser.

14:30

We will not address any of the serious issues that have been raised about this part of the Bill by the public or in this House and the other Chamber by nodding along to amendments (b) and (c), which are notionally in lieu of Lords amendment 1. The Deputy Leader of the House could not tell us whether the term “special adviser”—whether in Lords amendment 1 or as defined in amendment (c)—would include the new breed of advisers that the Government are determined to appoint.

[Tom Brake]

I have received clarification on that point. The new type of adviser to which the hon. Gentleman is referring exists only as a recommendation in a report on civil service reform. Such advisers do not currently exist, so it is impossible definitively to confirm or deny whether they would be covered by the proposals. If the new advisers are employed on the same basis as special advisers and are therefore covered by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, they would be covered. If they are not employed on that basis, but are employed as civil servants, they would not be covered.

[Mark Durkan]

In what I have read, Government officials have said that the new advisers will not be special advisers—they might be specialist advisers, but they will not be special advisers. They will advise on policy. We are told by the Ministers who back the idea that it is about trying to break the logjam in Government and move policy along decisively. They will therefore have a key role in moving public policy along. It is Ministers, not Opposition Members, who are planning to have this new breed of advisers—this addition to the ecosystem of government and the networks of advice—so if the Government have not worked out what class of beast they will be, they cannot condemn the rest of us for asking and wondering. As legislators, we are meant to think forward to things that are planned and that are likely to happen.

The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has said that the reason he will not press amendment (a) to a Division is purely to afford the House time to discuss the issues in part 2 of the Bill that need to be discussed. However, I want to stress the merits of amendment (a). I hope that in future Ministers will not abuse the fact that a proposal is not being pressed to a Division out of courtesy to the Chamber because it has other serious concerns to discuss to make out that Members do not care about the issues or that the issues are not serious, as they have done today. These issues are serious. In my view, the Government have deliberately used the audacity of their proposals in part 2 as a human shield to cover the paucity and weakness of their proposals in part 1, which will apply only to those who present themselves in the Yellow Pages under the heading “Consultant Lobbyists”. People can engage in the business of professional lobbying on any other paid basis, whether it is in-house or for any of the big accountancy or legal firms, which provide all sorts of services.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I tabled amendments earlier in the Bill’s progress because I was very concerned about private lobbying and private lunches with friends, which can have a great deal of influence through the chains that the hon. Gentleman is describing. That is a weakness with this part of the Bill. I am only sorry that we do not have longer today to listen to the important nuanced arguments that are being made.

[Mark Durkan]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, which she specified so well in earlier stages of the Bill’s progress. In the spirit of acknowledging the profound concerns of other Members, I will draw my remarks to a close.

[Caroline Lucas]

I know how much pressure there is on time, so I will make two short points.

First, I pay tribute to the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the members of that Committee for all the hard work that they have done under incredibly difficult circumstances. In spite of the odds, they have provided Members with good information for this debate.

Secondly, the Government must be in a parallel universe if they genuinely think that the reassurances that they have pretended to give today will provide any comfort to people in this institution and, more important, those outside this institution. It is deeply insulting to our intelligence to say, “Well, a Minister might be able to change the meaning of this clause some time in the future,” and think that we will all go home thinking that that is fine.

That matters not just because of the importance of the Bill, but because what is happening here today is being watched by people all around the country. People are very dismayed about what a shambles this process is. It undermines our credibility as an institution if we cannot organise ourselves better to do justice to the arguments that have been debated in public meetings up and down the country. I have had more contact and received more letters on this issue than on anything else, other than the reorganisation of the NHS. People care about it deeply. It shows how out of touch the Government are that they think that they can rush the Bill through and get plaudits from people outside for the few amendments that they have introduced at the last moment, which do not go anywhere near far enough.

No matter how many times the Government repeat that there has been consultation or that there is transparency, I am reminded of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking-Glass”, when he says that words mean whatever he wants them to mean. That is what is happening here. The Government are in a parallel universe. They are deeply out of touch with ordinary people. If more Government Members had listened to the public, they would know that they cannot get away with this.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Lady share my suspicion that perhaps the main reason the Government are rushing this legislation through is that they want to curtail proper debate and scrutiny of their policies immediately before the election?

[Caroline Lucas]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If we had more time, we could speculate further on the motivation for this very sinister Bill. I agree with the motivation that he ascribes to it.

Finally, the Government came to office saying that they would champion the big society, so it has been deeply disillusioning for everybody to see how they have muzzled it at every turn. I hope that people will remember that when they vote in the election in 18 months’ time.

[Mr Allen]

In view of the time, rather than have Members wandering around the Lobbies to produce a result that we all know in advance, I will not press amendment (a) to a vote. However, I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan): we in no way accept that the Government’s proposal is good. On the contrary, we believe that senior civil servants should be covered in the Bill, but they are not. I hope that all colleagues in this House and in the other place will realise that the only reason I am withdrawing the amendment is to ensure that there is only one vote and that we do not take up the House’s precious time, which has been so curtailed by the Government’s timetable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Tom Brake.)

14:38

Division 187

Ayes: 311

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 45
Independent: 1

Noes: 258

---

Labour: 232
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Conservative: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 3
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendments (b) and (c) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 101 to 103 and 5 to 15 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 13 and 14.

Clause 26

Meaning of “controlled expenditure”

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 16.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following:

Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107.

Lords amendment 108, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 19.

Lords amendment 20, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 21 to 25.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 28 to 54.

Lords amendment 55, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 56 to 58.

Lords amendment 59, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 60 to 74, 109 to 116 and 18.

Lords amendment 75, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 76 to 98.

Lords amendment 99, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 100.

[Mr Lansley]

Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108, with which the Government disagree, relate to constituency limits and staff costs. I ask the House not to support amendments tabled by hon. Members to Lords amendments 20, 55, 59, 75 and 99.

After the Bill was last seen by the House, during consideration in the House of Lords, the Government undertook a further six-week consultation with interested parties—on part 2 of the Bill—that built upon the Government’s already considerable engagement with many campaigning groups. During the consultation, which took place between Second Reading and the Committee stage of part 2 of the Bill in the Lords, the Government held detailed, important and exhaustive—and sometimes exhausting—talks with some 50 organisations. Those discussions informed the Government amendments, with which the Lords agreed. As the House will have discerned from my opening remarks, many amendments—100 in total, encompassing 20 substantive issues—to part 2 have returned from their lordships, and we propose to accept all but three of them. The amendments, agreed in consequence of our discussions in the Lords, represent a considerable body of work undertaken in that House, and we are grateful to their lordships for that work.

The changes are designed to address the practical concerns raised by third parties, while preserving the important principles of transparency that underpin part 2. The amendments reduce the burden on smaller third parties who campaign at elections, ease the transition to the new regime and clarify the regulatory rules. That last point is important, because it became clear during the consultation that concerns often stemmed from a lack of awareness of the existing rules in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

As the House will recall, the PPERA established a framework for the regulation of non-party campaigning at elections, and many of the representations derived from an objection not to the Bill, but to how the PPERA rules, in the view of those making the representations, would have worked. This debate has enabled us to introduce amendments that meet many of the concerns raised, to clarify how charities and campaigners can legitimately campaign on policies and issues without falling subject to the election law regulatory regime and, where they may fall to be regulated, to reduce the burdens of compliance and ensure that small-scale campaigns are exempt from that regime.

The House will recall that before the Bill was sent to the Lords, we made significant changes to it here. In particular, we returned to the definition of “controlled expenditure” in the PPERA—in other words, expenditure

“reasonably regarded as intended to…promote or procure the electoral success”

of a party or candidate—but narrowed it slightly so as not to include the additional limb about enhancing the standing of parties or candidates. We had, therefore, already made some clarifications to the Bill before we sent it to their lordships.

Of those changes, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, one of the largest and most prominent umbrella bodies representing charities and the voluntary sector, said:

“The government’s commitment to abandon the change to the test of what constitutes non-party campaigning is a significant step in the right direction.”

[Pete Wishart]

The Leader of the House knows, because we have told him often enough, that on these issues we actively encourage the participation of the third sector in Scotland. In the light of that, why have the Scottish Government not received one reply from this Government regarding the Bill, particularly concerning its effect on our referendum and on Scottish charities?

[Mr Lansley]

The Bill, of course, will have no effect on the referendum in September. I do not recall receiving a letter from Ministers in the Scottish Government, although I do recall receiving letters from the First Minister of Wales, which I replied to. If Ministers have received any such letters, I shall gladly take advice on what the reply has been.

14:59

On the amendments to part 2 that their lordships have returned to us today, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has said:

“Much of the risk to charities from this legislation has now been averted. We are grateful that the government has listened to the concerns charities have raised in recent months. Charities, by law, may not campaign in a party political manner…The bill now provides a much more sensible balance than it did to begin with between creating accountability and transparency in elections while still allowing for charities and others to speak up on issues of concern.”

One need not fully embrace what NCVO said about the character of the Bill in the first place to recognise that we have arrived at what I hope continues to meet the principles of transparency in election campaigning while continuing to enable charities and voluntary organisations fully to exercise free speech on policies and issues.

[Mr Redwood]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that charities have never been able to use tax-privileged money to campaign for parties and individuals in elections, which is what he wishes to continue to be the case?

[Mr Lansley]

That is absolutely right. I am sure my right hon. Friend will recall—it has been interesting to have these conversations—that if charities comply with the guidance, called CC9, issued by the Charity Commission, we can be pretty confident, except in very limited circumstances, that they will not fall to be regulated under election law. It could happen if, for example, a charity pursued its purpose in a run-up to an election, received various pledges from various candidates or parties in relation to its objectives and then chose to issue details to the public. That could be held to be seeking to influence electoral outcomes. Frankly, however, our discussions have increasingly demonstrated a mature approach on the part of the charities, many of which have recognised that the Bill was not really about exempting charities and that only in very limited circumstances would charities fall to be regulated. Many charities completely understood and agreed that it was right for those who wished to influence election outcomes to do so openly and transparently. That is what the Bill is all about.

[Andrew George]

The Leader of the House implies that, in accepting all but three of the amendments to part 2, the Government are being generous, yet many of the amendments are, of course, Government amendments. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, as well as the charitable sector demonstrating its maturity, the Government might have learned some lessons from this particular process? What are those lessons, and does he not accept that he could have done things better?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but I think that, in this respect, my hon. Friend has not understood how these issues have often worked. I shall not go through all the amendments in detail, but many of those that he says are coming back to us as Government amendments were tabled as Government amendments on Report in recognition of the character of the preceding debate and consultation in Committee. Members of the House of Lords often raised issues in Committee. My noble Friends Lord Wallace of Tankerness, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Gardiner did magnificent work in determining where it was appropriate for the Government to make amendments in recognition of the concerns expressed. [Interruption.] I do not think that Opposition Members should sneer at the idea of the Government tabling amendments in the other place in order to bring them back here to meet the concerns, which is nothing other than a proper process of scrutiny.

There are a lot of amendments in the group, so let me set out the Government view of the main ones, starting with those with which we disagree. It is important for Members to understand where the burden of the debate lies.

Lords amendment 108 seeks to exclude staff costs associated with any member of staff of a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences, organised media events, public rallies and public events. When Parliament passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it believed that the inclusion of staff costs was an important element of ensuring a transparent regulatory regime. As Labour Members will recall from their time in government, that Act included staff costs in the calculation of controlled expenditure for non-party campaigners. The decision was taken on the basis that where a third party undertakes other activities besides political campaigning and enters into political campaigning, its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My understanding is that our election agents would count as part of our costs when we stand for election, as would hiring a phone bank, so why should there not be full transparency in connection with the staffing costs in this case?

[Mr Lansley]

There is a distinction between the handling of staff costs for political parties and their handling for non-party campaigning. That was the point I was making: in so far as political parties have permanent staffing costs, they are not necessarily included, but it was determined in the 2000 Act that we should aim to identify the additional costs. [Interruption.] They are included in individual constituency calculations, but not in the total spending limits for political parties, as applied under PPERA on a national basis. Otherwise, if a political party had more staff, it would automatically have less money available to spend at the time of the election. It is essentially about parity of arms. Where third parties are concerned, except in relation to the election period, almost by definition they do not have permanent expenditure on party political campaigning, so what they spend at election time needs to be calculated.

[Mr Allen]

rose—

[Mr Lansley]

I will give way, but I must make some progress; otherwise the Opposition Front-Bench team will start chuntering again, complaining that I have taken up all the time.

[Mr Allen]

I shall avoid drawing the parallel that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) drew between political parties on the one hand and charities and voluntary organisations on the other, which rather gave the game away. Let me refer more helpfully to the fact that my Select Committee supports the view that staffing costs should be included. However, we also support the second Chamber in its view that, for practical reasons, that should not apply this time round. The Electoral Commission and their lordships argued on practical grounds that because of the extra bureaucracy and the shortness of time, staffing costs should be exempt on this occasion, whereas they should normally be included.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point at this stage. He was a member of the Government who included staff costs for non-party campaigning in the 2000 Act, and I think it would have been consistent for him to have stayed with that position.

On the concerns of third parties about the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, that is an existing element of the regulatory regime. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance, shows that such costs can be accounted for without it being overly burdensome. In its current guidance, the Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs, which need to be reported.

It should also be noted—Lords amendment 19 is relevant—that with the proposed increases in the registration threshold, smaller organisations, whether they be charities or other campaigning organisations, will not be subject to any regulation. The need to calculate staff costs will not apply in that case, and it is the same for any larger organisation that spends only relatively small sums. Volunteer costs will, of course, continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure.

As such, the Government believe that the inclusion of staff costs is an important element of the regime. We have none the less agreed to a review of the operation of the Bill during the 2015 general election. The inclusion of staffing costs will be an aspect of that review. Lords amendment 108 would, however, create a significant gap in the operation of an effective regulatory regime at the next general election, so I ask the House to reject it.

The next Lords amendments with which the Government disagree are Lords amendments 26 and 27—adding up to the total of three. These amendments provide that only limited activities should be considered as part of controlled expenditure for constituency limit purposes. The amendments would require that only the costs of election materials—whether they are addressed to households or otherwise distributed—and unsolicited telephone calls to households should count towards those constituency limits. They therefore fail to take into account the principle that lay behind the introduction of constituency limits, namely the principle of transparency. It is essential for members of the public to know when third parties are campaigning in the constituencies in which they live, and to know how much money they are spending in doing so if it rises above any significant level.

As Members know very well, campaigning does not revolve around leafleting and cold calls. There are events such as press conferences and rallies; there is transport to bus supporters to an area, and there are the payments made to campaigners. All those are significant aspects of campaigning, and excluding the costs of such activities would undermine the effectiveness of the constituency limits. The constituency limits applying to third parties were introduced to prevent candidates and political parties—they are, of course, the main actors in any election, and rightly so—from being outspent and overwhelmed by the activities of third parties, so that parties do not put their own candidates forward in an election. The Bill does not prevent third parties from campaigning, but it does require them to be open and up front about their spending, and not to overwhelm and outspend the candidates and parties.

[Caroline Lucas]

I wonder whether the Leader of the House has listened to all the non-governmental organisations that have tried to explain to him that, by and large, they do not organise on a constituency basis, and that trying to allocate the costs in that way is incredibly complex and time consuming. Is he ignoring those organisations because he does not understand how they work, or because he does understand how they work and wants to shut them down?

[Mr Lansley]

I have listened very carefully to what has been said to me. I think that campaigning organisations often object to constituency limits because they erroneously assume that when they are undertaking a national activity there will be disaggregation to individual constituency limits, because of, as it were, the coincidence of where that activity takes place. It will form part of a constituency activity in circumstances in which there is a significant effect in that constituency; otherwise, it will form part of a national activity. [Interruption.] The guidance will make clear that a constituency limit will apply when there is a significant effect in a specific geographical area or individual constituency, but that when the activity concerned forms part of a national activity, national limits will apply.

We need constituency limits. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is proposing that we should not have them, but when we sent the Bill to the House of Lords, a clear decision made by Members of the House of Commons expressed their belief that it was right to have them. Without them, the national limit could all be spent in individual constituencies: it could be targeted on a small number of constituencies in a way that would completely distort elections that are meant to be between political parties. That is the basis on which the Bill is structured.

[Wayne David]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. I need to make progress now.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), would return the spending limits to a higher level than that for which the Bill provides—effectively, to the current level in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. It proposes a spending limit of £793,000 for England, £108,000 for Scotland and £60,000 for Wales. The limit for Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Bill, would continue to be £30,800.

During our debate on the last group of amendments, the hon. Gentleman spent half an hour lecturing us about the procedures of the House. He is the Chair of a Select Committee that, on Report, proposed amendment 102, which would have deleted clause 27 and left the spending limits as they were in PPERA. He argued for that, and the House rejected it by a majority of 51. Now he has presented a report to the House—from a Select Committee of the House—which completely ignores the House’s decision. The House has a view on this matter, but the Committee has ignored that view. The hon. Gentleman is simply re-presenting the same argument to the House, ignoring—on behalf of his Select Committee—the fact that the House has already rejected it. If the Select Committee does nothing else, it should take account of the view of the House before submitting a report to the House.

15:14

[Mr Allen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Lansley]

No. Oh, come on then.

[Mr Allen]

I wanted to intervene so that the right hon. Gentleman could calm down for a moment and stop wagging his finger at Members.

Had my Select Committee—the majority of which consists of coalition Members—had more than two working hours in which to produce a report, we would have done an even better job; and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if we had had the time that he has had in which to produce a Bill, we would have done a damn sight better job than he has managed to do.

[Mr Lansley]

I shall not wag my finger at the hon. Gentleman, but he has made a ridiculous point. If the members of his Select Committee wanted to produce an additional report, they should have directed themselves to the Lords amendments. [Interruption.] They have not done that. What they have done is reintroduce, by way of an amendment to a Lords amendment, a subject—[Interruption.] Amendments were agreed in the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman has tabled an amendment whose purpose is not to address the Lords amendment, but to reinsert a provision that was previously rejected, and was not even pressed in the House of Lords.

Both this House and the House of Lords agreed that a reduction in spending limits was sensible. The £450,000 overall spending limit that the Bill now proposes is at a level that few political parties exceed, accounting for the same range of activities. For instance, at the last general election only four political parties—ourselves, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the UK Independence Party—spent more than that.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

You spent a lot more.

[Mr Lansley]

We have equality of arms under the legislation, although I think I remember that, technically speaking, the Labour party spent more. But we will return to that.

There are about 100 other political parties, campaigning on a national basis, which managed to do so without exceeding that overall spending limit. Surely, if third parties wish to campaign on the basis of involving themselves directly in the influencing of elections, they should be able to do so without spending more than the great majority of the small political parties in the country have chosen to spend.

[Mark Durkan]

As a member of the Select Committee, I think it a bit rich for us to be lectured on proposing amendments to Lords amendments by someone who is proposing that we reject a number of significant Lords amendments. If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the Bill, as it broadly stands—with the Government’s suggested response to the Lords amendments—is so perfect, why did the Government table Lords amendment 99. which gives Henry VIII powers to Ministers enabling them to change the very law that he says is so perfect?

[Mr Lansley]

I shall deal with Lords amendment 99 later. What I will say now is that the amendment that we are discussing would leave the spending limit in Northern Ireland as it is under existing legislation, not least because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House went to Northern Ireland to meet organisations there and discuss these matters.

The third party spending limit allows for a great deal of activity. That is partly because much electioneering activity can be now conducted by means of new technology at a much lower cost than used to be the case, but in any event a third party could print 40 million leaflets, it could take out a dozen front-page advertisements in a national newspaper, or it could make 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. That, I think, demonstrates that the limits proposed by Lords amendment 20 are proportionate.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I note that the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) wants to increase the amounts. Given that elections are meant to take place between political parties, why are the limits so extensive, and why have the Government allowed them to be so high?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the spending limits for political parties, or—

[Charlie Elphicke]

My point is this. Should not the third-party interventions be lower, given that elections are meant to take place between political parties?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. We have set out to strike a balance, and, in Lords amendment 20, we have changed the limits applying to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. On the basis of all those arguments, I ask the House to resist amendment (a) if it is pursued by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.

Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 55, the Government have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure reporting requirements are not overly burdensome. The Government removed the need for nil reporting and have also reduced the regulated period. The regulated period for third parties will commence in September this year, not May, and this will allow additional time for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance and for campaigners to be fully aware of the regulatory regime. Owing to the reduced regulated period, this will impact on the quarterly reporting cycles for the 2015 general election, with the final “quarterly cycle” being compacted from September—three months is a short period running up to the general election.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North has tabled an amendment intending to deal with this situation. However, the Government believe that as this is late in the cycle and only reports of donations over £7,500 are required, third parties will have systems in place to cope with this reduced period. As there is no requirement for nil reports, a period—short or otherwise—will require nothing at all unless a large donation is accepted during that period. It should be noted that third parties will have to provide weekly reports after the Dissolution of Parliament, so the compacted final quarterly cycle will not result in an overly burdensome reporting requirement, particularly in the light of the Lords amendments, which we will come on to, relating to reporting requirements.

On the hon. Gentlemen’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 59, third parties will have to submit a donations return to the Electoral Commission only where they have received a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. Where they have not received a donation of this value, no report needs to be submitted. This underpins the aim of part 2, which is to increase transparency without placing overly burdensome reporting requirements upon a third party. As is the current practice, under section 96 of PPERA a third party will have to provide a full report of reportable donations three months after polling day. This return is submitted to the Electoral Commission. The Government believe that the section 96 return provides an important safeguard where a full record of reportable donations is provided and visible. This will allow both the Electoral Commission and the general public to ascertain the amount and source of all reportable donations received by a third party during the regulated period. The Government do not believe that this requirement is overly burdensome, as the information will have already been prepared by the third party. It also allows the opportunity for the third party to declare any reportable donations which it has failed to declare previously. This underpins the regulatory regime. We therefore do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, which requires the same donation to be reported only once as that would risk a lack of transparency through this section 96 return coming after the election.

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Most of the correspondence I have received from concerned members of the public is in support of charities, some very small, whose normal activities are not related to the electoral success of a political party or individual. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to set their minds at rest that this Bill will not be detrimental to them in any way?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I can, for two reasons. First, only expenditure which would reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the success of a party or candidate might fall to be regulated as election expenditure, and it is demonstrable at previous elections under this regulatory regime that large amounts of policy-related campaigning has been undertaken by charities and that has not required to be regulated. The second reassurance, as we will come on to see with other amendments, is that we are proposing to lift the registration threshold up from the current level of £10,000 to £20,000. That will allow small-scale campaigning by organisations not to be part of the regulatory regime.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75, a statement of accounts has to be provided only if the third party has incurred controlled expenditure over the registration threshold. In addition, an individual is excluded from the provisions. Those third parties who prepare accounts under another enactment need not prepare additional accounts if the commission is satisfied they include equivalent information. When a third party registers with the Electoral Commission it must state, using a simple tick box, whether it is an individual or one of the bodies that can register as a third party. From this information, the Electoral Commission can ascertain whether the body provides accounts under another enactment. As a result it would add unnecessary additional bureaucracy to ask the third party to submit a subsequent declaration that it is exempt from the provisions, as the amendment requires. I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist with that.

Turning to amendment (a) to Lords amendment 99 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the order-making power, to which the hon. Member for Foyle just referred, would allow for the Government only to make consequential amendments. It would not allow the Government to amend the fundamental principles and provisions included in part 2 of the Bill. Any changes to primary legislation would be subject to affirmative resolution in any case. The power is also time limited, so that it could be used only until the date of the next general election. I should emphasise that I hope this power will not be needed, but I consider it prudent to insert it into the Bill, to ensure it is possible to make changes should unforeseen or unintended effects be identified after the Bill receives Royal Assent which could be put right by consequential provision.

The Government have introduced—the Lords is introducing—a number of amendments of significant benefit to campaigners, and we would not want to risk them being ineffective for any technical reason. We agree that it is important to consult the commission and I can assure the House that we will consult it before making an order under this power. The commission in its briefing agrees with this approach. Should the commission make a recommendation to us to use this power, we will consider such a recommendation extremely carefully. Because of the limited scope of the power and this assurance, the Government do not believe it is necessary to accept this amendment.

Baroness Thomas, the Chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords, described the power yesterday as

“well precedented and here it is very narrowly drawn. The House need not worry that the Government are in some way exceeding their powers or doing something they should not on this occasion.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 615.]

Consequently, we cannot support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments with which we agree. Lords amendments 106 to 107 set out in schedule 8A a consolidated and extensive list of the types of expenses which are excluded from counting as controlled expenditure. Further to the current exclusions provided for in PPERA, the Lords in these amendments extend them to include: expenses related to translating materials from English to Welsh or from Welsh to English; costs associated with providing protection of persons or property in relation to a public rally or event; and reasonable expenses incurred that are reasonably attributable to an individual’s disability. The exclusion of translation costs reflects the position of the Welsh language, which is governed by the Welsh Language Act 1993. Under that Act, the English and Welsh languages have equal status in Wales. This differs from other languages spoken in the UK, where the UK Parliament has not legislated to give them the same status as Welsh.

Lords amendment 19 increases the registration thresholds in the Bill, as I was discussing in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson). Those were set in the Bill at £5,000 for England and £2,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment however raises these amounts substantially, from £5,000 to £20,000 for England and from £2,000 to £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This change is in response to the many representations this Government have received from campaigners who spend only small amounts of money and were concerned that the Bill’s transparency provisions, though essential, would in fact impose unduly onerous compliance requirements. It is important to recognise, as many organisations did, that election expenditure should in principle be disclosed and regulated, but there were concerns that smaller organisations would be caught by the provisions. By raising the thresholds to levels that also take into account the extended range of activities proposed by the Bill, small campaigners can be assured that they will not suddenly be subject to administrative controls that they are not resourced or equipped to comply with.

15:30

[Bob Stewart]

Does the raised amount include staff costs?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes. The registration threshold is the threshold of expenditure at which one is required to register, and all the limits for the registration threshold and the total spending limits are in relation to the definition of controlled expenditure which includes staffing costs for third parties.

Lords amendment 20 increases the spending limits—not the registration thresholds—for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by £20,000 each. This is an increase from the levels set in the Bill when it went to the Lords. The new limits will be £55,400 for Scotland, £44,000 for Wales and £30,800 for Northern Ireland. Campaigners have argued that the spending limits for those parts of the United Kingdom were disproportionately low—so low in fact, that they might force campaigners to step aside and not participate in elections. It has never been our intention to prevent third parties from campaigning altogether. They are a key aspect of the democratic process and, to ensure they remain so, the spending limits have been raised to more suitable amounts.

Lords amendment 18 relates to coalitions. It is important to recognise that the Bill did not change the regulatory regime for coalitions, but the debate on the Bill has enabled us to identify a change that will help campaigners that do incur small amounts of expenditure. The Government received many representations on the existing PPERA regime on coalitions. The concern was that the Bill’s provisions would put onerous reporting burdens on them. This fear was particularly pronounced in relation to those who often campaign as part of a coalition.

This new procedure introduces a new framework. A third party may participate in as many coalitions as it wishes. When it takes part in this procedure, it will not have to report for its expenditure, provided it does not incur total spend above the registration threshold—the numbers to which I just referred. The third party would take on the status of a “minor campaigner”. Another third party who agrees to act as a “lead campaigner” in the coalition’s common plan would instead report the expenditure it and the minor campaigner had both incurred. As with the registration thresholds, this provision is also intended to reassure small spending campaigners that new burdens will not be imposed upon them. Indeed, it will reduce the burden compared with the regime in the 2000 Act.

Lords amendment 28 removes the post-dissolution constituency limit of £5,850. Campaigners may now spend the entire constituency limit of £9,750 at any time during the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election if they so wish. That makes it less restrictive and easier to comply with.

Lords amendments 91, 94 and 96 shorten the length of the regulated period for third parties. The regulated period is the time before an election within which only limited expenditure can be incurred, and certain campaigning rules must be observed. Reports must be submitted to the regulator. The regulator, the Electoral Commission and campaigners have argued that they need more time than the Bill would otherwise allow to understand fully the new rules and their responsibilities under them. The Government agree about the need to ensure suitable guidance is in place for campaigners. If the Electoral Commission needs further time to produce this guidance, and ensure it is relevant, clear and useful, the regulated period can be shortened to facilitate that. That is why the regulated period for third parties, for the purposes of the 2015 parliamentary general election only, will be reduced to seven and a half months—starting immediately after the Scottish referendum—instead of the usual twelve months.

Let me stress that the regulated period for political parties is not being similarly reduced.

The Lords have also introduced amendments to allow royal chartered bodies, charitable incorporated organisations, Scottish charitable incorporated organisations and Scottish partnerships to register as a recognised third party. This reflects the fact that the list of bodies that can register as a third party has not been updated since 2000.

The Lords have made further amendments that seek to reduce unnecessary burdens on recognised third parties. As a result, recognised third parties will have to provide a donations report to the Electoral Commission only when they receive a reportable donation of £7,500 or more. There will no longer be a requirement to provide nil reports. In addition, a recognised third party will no longer have to provide a spending return or statement of accounts if it only incurs controlled expenditure below the necessary registration threshold. When a recognised third party has to provide a statement of accounts, this can be sent to the Electoral Commission in a longer time frame—within nine months of the end of the regulated period, if they do not have to be audited, or 12 months, if they do have to be audited.

On non-party campaigning, in order to ensure that the provisions of this Bill are subject to review, Lords amendment 88 stipulates that the Government must, within twelve months of Royal Assent, appoint a person to review the operation of the PPERA provisions, as amended by this Bill, at the next general election. The findings of that review must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the next general election—that is, by November 2016. The review will provide a unique real-time opportunity to assess how the new regulatory regime is operating, in good time for the 2020 general election.

Lords amendment 87 is not about non-party campaigning. It introduces a new measure to ensure that candidates’ personal expenses will be excluded from counting towards their election expenses limits at local elections in England and Wales. This change will harmonise those arrangements with the existing situation for parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections and Greater London authority elections, at which personal expenses are already excluded from candidates’ expenses limits.

This change has been brought about principally so that disabled candidates are not unfairly penalised for incurring disability-related costs, which can often be quite high. The need for the change became apparent following the creation of the access to elected office for disabled people fund. The fund was established by this Government to provide grants to disabled people who are, or who go on to become, candidates at elections. The fund provides grants to help candidates to overcome any barriers to elected office that might arise as a result of their disability. However, electoral law considered those grants to be personal expenses and therefore deductable from candidates’ election expenses limits at local elections—the one poll where personal expenses counted towards a candidate’s expenses limit.

Lords amendment 87 therefore brings the treatment of personal expenses at local elections into line with the arrangements for other polls where they are already exempt. It would be particularly unfair to penalise disabled candidates standing at local elections for accepting fund grants or even incurring their own disability-related costs. The amendment does not as yet extend to local elections in Northern Ireland or Scotland, as those polls are devolved. However, we will work with the respective Governments to ensure that there is consistency.

Much work has been done in this House, in the Lords and with external stakeholders to ensure that the Bill meets the principle of enhanced transparency for third parties who want to influence the outcome of elections, while preserving the essential freedom to speak out on issues. I should like to thank those who have contributed to the debates, and I reiterate my thanks to my noble Friends in the House of Lords. As has been said many times before, the purpose of the Bill is to bring greater awareness and clarity to campaigning activity. I believe that, through these amendments, that is what we can achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the draft civil legal aid regulations. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 231, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Stephen Twigg]

A total of 1 hour and 50 minutes has been allocated for this important debate on part 2 of the Bill, and the Leader of the House has just spoken for almost three quarters of an hour. That leaves the rest of us just over an hour to address an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have received dozens of items of correspondence in the past few days.

Let us remind ourselves that the Bill started out as a lobbying measure. It was meant to be the Government’s response to what the Prime Minister called

“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.

However, the Bill has been a disaster from the very beginning. It was meant to address the next big scandal; instead, it has turned into an attack on civil society, on campaigners and on trade unions. It was meant to fix our broken politics; instead, it risks stifling free and open democratic debate. It was supposedly about stopping big money coming into our politics; instead, it creates the risk that civil society will face unnecessary and burdensome regulations.

It was noted in our earlier discussions on part 1 that the process by which the Bill has been conducted through Parliament is entirely in line with the draconian nature of the Bill itself. There has been a distinct lack of scrutiny at every stage. It has been a shambles. Deliberations on the Bill in the other place finished yesterday—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is very interesting, but I must remind him that this is not a Third Reading debate. His remarks should refer specifically to the amendments before us, and I presume that he was about to speak to them before I interrupted him.

[Stephen Twigg]

I am grateful to you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will deal with the amendments in a moment, but it is important that we consider the context, because the speed with which the Bill has been considered, particularly in the past few days, has affected the ability of Members in this House to propose amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) said in the debate on the previous group, Baroness Williams of Crosby said yesterday that the timings, whereby the Lords finished yesterday and the Commons resumed consideration today, are “ludicrous”.

In moving on to deal with the amendments, I wish to praise one of the proponents of the amendments in the Lords, the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries. He has worked diligently to propose sensible amendments on behalf of his Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement in an attempt to improve a deeply flawed Bill. Weeks of engagement, careful drafting of amendments, debate and consultation led to a position where, as has been said, the Government were defeated on three amendments, one in part 1 and two in part 2. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said, there are lessons to be learned by this Government from this process. Some of these issues might not have arisen had the Government published this legislation and enabled pre-legislative scrutiny to take place.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and all the other members of the Committee. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the Government parties have a majority on the Committee yet it offered a damning indictment of the way in which the Bill has been handled. The Committee stated:

“The haste with which Lords amendments are returning to the Commons is yet another example of the way in which this Bill has been rushed through Parliament. The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates a contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in the value of parliamentary scrutiny.”

I remind the House that last September we asked the Government to think again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Context we have got, time we have not. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should now move on from the context—we are not on Third Reading—to the specifics. Other hon. Members are waiting to speak.

[Stephen Twigg]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and let me move on to address some of the specific Lords amendments. First, may I welcome changes that have been made which respond to concerns that have been raised by civil society, but I urge the Government today, notwithstanding what the Leader of the House has just said, to go further and accept the Lords amendments on staffing costs and on constituency limits? Raising registration thresholds is a sensible move that will stop many small and local campaigners becoming entangled in complicated and burdensome regulations. Allowing large campaigners to provide a single expenditure report on behalf of a coalition of smaller campaigners will incentivise and help collaborative working by organisations of different sizes. Simplifying the reporting regime is also a sensible reform.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the burden on third-party organisations. Does he agree with the point made by Lord Harries that it would be almost impossible for the Electoral Commission to police third-party expenditure?

[Stephen Twigg]

I absolutely agree. Of course the Electoral Commission made the same point, and I will deal with that when I reach the relevant amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that important point on the record.

The Government are proposing to legislate for a review of part 2 following the general election. A review is a sensible thing to carry out, and we support it. However, is there not an irony in rushing legislation through Parliament without appropriate levels of consultation and only at the end, after the event, to add a Government amendment for a serious and thorough review? Surely that is the wrong way round. For many of those who have been campaigning on this Bill and on the Lords amendments, this amendment is a cruel twist. Having been denied a serious process of consultation with the aim, which is blatantly obvious, of stifling campaigning before the next election, the Government now say that there will be a substantial review, but that it will be undertaken after the general election.

15:45

[Wayne David]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposal amounts to a tacit acceptance that there are fundamental defects in what has been proposed? Would it not be far more sensible if they were honest and straight and recognise that and delayed the whole process?

[Stephen Twigg]

Absolutely, but I will not be tempted too far down that path, because I must address the Lords amendments that are before us today. My hon. Friend, who led for us on this part of the Bill along with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), makes a powerful point.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend not surprised at the Government’s attitude to this particular set of amendments? The Prime Minister talks about the big society, yet the way that this legislation has been formulated will stifle that same big society.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes her point extremely powerfully. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, a measure that was supposed to address a serious crisis around lobbying—we have addressed that in part 1 earlier this afternoon—has instead turned into something that is at real risk of chilling debate among citizens in the period between now and the next general election. The Bill is being rushed through so that it can take effect and be in place for the general election campaign in 2015. Then there is an offer of a serious review, but only after that election. That is churlish, and it is cheap politics from the Government parties. Let me refer to Steve Bubb, the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations. He said:

“The government is clearly keen to show it is listening to civil society, but these amendments don't prevent the Bill curbing freedom of speech around elections.”

The Select Committee agreed with that, and said:

“We do not believe that the Government has clearly communicated the need for Part 2 of the Bill, or has provided a satisfactory account of the basis on which the new levels for registration and expenditure by third parties have been set.”

[Charlie Elphicke]

When it comes to the record of expenditure, does the hon. Gentleman believe that Sir Stephen Bubb is the best example to quote?

[Stephen Twigg]

There are many other examples that I could quote. I chose to quote Sir Stephen, but I could have quoted many other figures. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that there is pretty much unanimity among civil society, left to right, on this question. I will come back to that very point in a moment.

In an attempt to improve what we see as a flawed Bill, we support Lords amendment 45. It is an amendment of incredible importance to campaigning groups and charities. It is clear and simple, and calls for the removal of background staffing costs from activities such as press conferences, media events, transport costs and public rallies. We absolutely support the aim of transparency and accountability. The amendment is not designed to take these activities out of the parameters of the regulation. It is about removing the background staff costs from the activities set out in new schedule 8A.

[Mr Lansley]

It is amendment 108, not 45.

[Stephen Twigg]

I will take the Leader of the House at his word. Let me say “the relevant amendment”. I believe this relevant amendment is modest. It is primarily about not the costs themselves but the additional bureaucracy that this would involve. For many smaller charities, it would be incredibly difficult to differentiate the amount of time that the staff member spends on these activities from the time they spend on other activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned Lord Harries of Pentregarth. What he said in the other place is worth considering. It is easy to assess the amount of money that one will spend on hiring the hall for a public rally, because there is an invoice. However, there is no invoice for a member of staff or for the 10% of the time spent over four weeks carrying out the work.

[Bob Stewart]

Small charities will get nowhere near their limits, even if they put in all their staff costs. I suspect that charities will not have any problems with the limits whatsoever.

[Stephen Twigg]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is correct. I have already said that we welcome some of the changes to the registration and threshold levels, but there is still concern among charities about the impact this change could have and the Lords amendment simply clarifies and improves that element of the Bill.

There is no desire in this House to create a regulatory system that is impossible to abide by. We do not want to stifle charities or the other voluntary and citizens’ organisations that are often the bedrock of our communities with further unnecessary red tape and changes to their accountancy structure. Many such organisations rely on volunteers, but they have to try to cost the time of their volunteers.

I believe that the Lords amendment is a compromise. The Opposition share the preference that the Electoral Commission has expressed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, the Chair of the Select Committee, reminded us earlier, the Electoral Commission said that for the 2015 election it would prefer all staff costs to be removed. The amendment does not go as far as that recommendation, as it would merely count for background staff costs in relation to certain activities that are being brought into regulation.

It is clear that some costs should be accounted for, such as those with an indirect relation to the canvassing of voters. It seems to me that it would not be very difficult to identify those costs, but organising a meeting, travelling to a venue or setting up a press conference might take merely a few minutes and it would be absurd to expect small and medium-sized organisations to have to account for that time, too. We see the amendment as a tidying up exercise that could save valuable time and money for charities and voluntary organisations while maintaining the purpose of transparency and accountability for those activities that relate directly to elections.

When the amendment was considered in the other place, only three peers who were not from the Government Benches voted against it. The Government were defeated, and on that basis I urge them to listen. Lord Tyler, the Liberal Democrat peer and a former long-standing Member of this House, made a powerful case, saying:

“Bluntly, I do not think that anyone cares if a policy officer, whose job for the rest of the year is something completely different, spends a little time booking a room for an election rally, or incurs costs travelling to it…if the regulations go through without us thinking about the implications, they could unnecessarily tie up campaigners in accounting for their time—and, worse still, could deter some from campaigning at all.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 280.]

[Steve McCabe]

Surely the problem is not about the amount of money. The danger is that the Government are completely ignoring the fact that small charities believe that the Government are setting out to tie them up in knots and prevent them from expressing opinions that they might find difficult. That is why this is regarded as an attack on freedom. Is that not the problem?

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why throughout our discussion of the Bill we have used the phrase “chilling effect”. There are the direct effects of the legislation, but in a sense the greater concern is the one of which he has reminded us—its broader effect on the ability of civil society and citizens to participate in debates in the run-up to elections.

Let me refer to other contributions in the other place. Lord Cormack—Patrick Cormack, a Conservative Member of this House for 40 years—urged the Government to take this step. He was supported by his Conservative colleague Lord Northbrook. They supported the amendment and argued that it would make life a lot easier for campaigners and would therefore give citizens a voice. I urge the Government to reconsider and, if they will not, I urge the House to stand with the other place on this amendment.

Let me move on to constituency limits. We are supposed to be addressing the issue of big money in politics. Bearing down on third party spending while leaving political party spending unreformed seems to me to be unfair and does not represent the radical reform we are looking for. Just now, the Leader of the House spoke about party spending at the 2010 general election. The biggest third-party spender spent 4% of the amount spent by the Conservative party at the last election—4%. If the Government are serious about taking the big money out of politics, they need to confront their reliance on a tiny number of wealthy donors.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Who was responsible for that 4%, and did they include their staff costs?

[Stephen Twigg]

We are talking about 4%. I do not have the information to hand—that is the honest answer to that question.

[Mr Lansley]

The answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is Unison, which did not include staff costs.

[Stephen Twigg]

So this is what it is all about. Unison, on behalf of its members, spent 4%. The Conservative party spent 25 times as much as the biggest third-party spender, which suggests that this is a solution in search of a problem.

[Andrew Gwynne]

The real issue is that at the 2010 general election spending by all the political parties totalled £31 million. In that same election period, third-party organisations spent just £3 million.

[Stephen Twigg]

My hon. Friend makes the point better than I did, and I thank him for doing so.

Given that both the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee supported the restoration of the third-party limit to the levels in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, we believe that that is the right approach. The Lords have advocated a clear, simplifying amendment, which would ensure that there are new reporting requirements for third parties in relation to telephone calls, literature to households and physical distribution in a defined area. The Government’s wider scope of activity, which would have to be reported, has been described by the Electoral Commission as unworkable and unenforceable. It said that

“it will be challenging to obtain robust evidence to determine and sanction breaches in specific geographical areas, for example, regarding the effects of a leafleting campaign or mobile advertising in different constituencies…it is likely to be difficult to demonstrate that a breach meets the necessarily high test for using a stop notice to intervene to halt campaigning activity.”

Surely there is nothing worse than our passing a new law that is unenforceable and unworkable.

The Electoral Commission states that the Lords amendments would reduce its worries about enforceability, although it still has concerns about this part of the Bill. The Government’s plans risk increasing the administrative burden on charities and campaigning groups. Often, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, those groups are not organised regionally or locally, let alone by constituency, and they would have to modify their accounting structures and the way in which they monitored their expenditure.

Let us consider the kind of cross-party campaigns that we are talking about: people campaigning on the badger cull; on HS2; on a hospital closure that might affect a region or sub-region; local food banks; and road extensions. There are many such examples, and I do not believe that the Leader of the House, in his response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, gave sufficient reassurance that the Government have addressed that issue. The Opposition support the Lords amendment, and we hope that the Government will have a change of heart.

In the debate in the other place, Lord Cormack said that he welcomed amendments that were trying

“to make a bad Bill better”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 281.]

He urged the Government to improve the Bill by supporting the Lords amendment. The chief executive of the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action said that the Government have

“turned an awful Bill into what might at best be described as a deeply flawed Bill.”

They have another opportunity to try to mitigate the disaster of the original Bill. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to accept the amendments that the Lords have proposed after careful and pragmatic consideration. For a party that used to talk a lot about the big society, it seems to me that without the Lords amendments, this is a cruel attempt at making society that bit smaller. The Lords amendments are sensible and modest on staffing costs and constituency limits, and they would help charities and other voluntary and campaigning organisations. If we keep the Lords amendments, they would improve the Bill considerably. I urge the House to accept them.

15:59

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a real privilege to contribute to this debate. I have contributed to all the debates on the Bill so far. I am quite optimistic about the Bill’s purposes, but today I want to confine my remarks to Lords amendments 108, 26 and 27. The Government reject amendments 26 and 27 because they are keen to take the big money out of politics and to ensure that local charities and organisations can be involved in campaigning. One of the things that has crept into every stage of debate on the Bill is that it is a gagging Bill. It is frightening good people in communities throughout the country.

[Wayne David]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to take the big money out of politics, is he in favour of putting curbs on the expenditure of political parties, particularly the Conservative party?

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very political point and I want to confine my remarks to the amendments.

Earlier, we heard an exchange between the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House regarding Unison and small local charities. The reality is that we need to stop the trend of large third party organisations—in the United States, they are called super PACs, or political action committees—attacking a small number of 90 to 100 constituencies that determine who wins the general election and will form the next Government. That is something that all hon. Members should be in favour of.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman provide some evidence for that assertion, which is the most ludicrous thing I have heard this afternoon?

[Stephen McPartland]

The hon. Gentleman disappoints and upsets me by suggesting that that is a ludicrous remark. The reality is that most people in this country want big money to be taken out of politics. Part 1 of the Bill is all about lobbying.

Some of the rhetoric that has come out of this House is frightening good people up and down the country and stopping them engaging in the process. One thing that hon. Members have intentionally not taken on board is that it is illegal for a charity to get involved in a political process and try to affect the outcome of an election. The whole purpose of the Bill is to do with third parties, but people seem to be advancing behind a screen of small charities. If we look at registration—[Interruption.]

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) has done a fantastic job as Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and I have read his reports with great interest. In fact, the first 15 of the conclusions and recommendations of the latest report, which was a very good job done overnight, agree with the Government, and accept that the Government have listened at every stage of the Bill. The Government have tried hard to listen to and work with local charities and community groups across the country to achieve some kind of success. [Interruption.] I have great respect for the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who says that that is not what is happening in her area. I am proud to have 400 charities and community groups in my area. Not one has contacted me about the Bill. Not a single one is upset about it because none would have the financial resources to spend these amounts of money. If those charities contact me, most do so because they need money to keep going and to maintain the services that they are interested in. This is very much about taking the big money out of politics and stopping the formation of large super PACs, which can create huge problems.

[Paul Flynn]

Can the hon. Gentleman recall any massive public outcry against the excesses of organisations like the British Legion, Oxfam and Save the Children in order to get the Bill through? Can he recall the outcry, from the Prime Minister and everyone else, against the greedy activities of corporate lobbyists? The Bill is designed to distract attention from the Government’s failure to deal with corporate lobbyists by attaching blame to the minnows, the small charities.

[Stephen McPartland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am very proud of the Government’s commitment to match all public contributions to Oxfam between now and mother’s day—hon. Members should contribute as much as they can. I am also proud that the Government are doing a lot of work with charities of all scopes and sizes. I cannot recall any such outcry, but the Government are trying to cut big money out of politics. From my point of view, this will stop the formation of large super PACs, which would contribute large amounts of money and resources to a small number of seats that will determine who wins the general election.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech that the Bill was designed to address the issue of big money in politics, but that is not what it will do. All it will do is attack small charities and third party organisations. The real money, which lies in lobbying Ministers and special advisers, has been ruled out. The Bill will not achieve the stated aim because it does not target those who need to be targeted.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I shall have to wrap up my remarks in a moment so that other Members can contribute.

The reality is that the Bill proves that the Government listened. They are the most transparent Government ever. The Bill has been consistently improved by Members on both sides of both Houses, and that is something the Government should be given credit for. I am proud to be a part of this Government, who work closely with charities across the country. Every Member of this House works hard with charities in their local communities, and those charities will not be affected by the Bill. I shall therefore be pleased to support the Government today in the Lobby.

On Lords amendment 108, which relates to excluding staff costs for charities and third party organisations, small charities in our constituencies will not be in a position to campaign in 80 or 90 other constituencies; they are just trying to survive in their small towns, cities and villages and to deliver for local people. Members should not use the frightening rhetoric that we have heard in relation to the Bill. That rhetoric stops charities and community groups engaging with us and getting involved in the political process. I urge all the community groups and charities in my constituency not to be frightened but to continue to engage with us and do what they always do, which is to campaign on policies and try to get them implemented.

[Mr Allen]

It is a great privilege to speak in the debate on this group of amendments—the first time I have done so when you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should I run dry, I will refer to my deputy Chair from her days on the Select Committee, who I am sure will be able to help me out!

Before speaking to the amendments, I would like to thank one or two people. I thank colleagues in the second Chamber, who I think have done an excellent job. I would certainly like to put on the record my thanks to members of the Select Committee, our Clerk and staff for the brilliant job they have done yet again in very short order. I would also like to thank the Leader of the House. He gets a bit tetchy when Select Committees and Parliament do their job of holding the Government to account, but I think that he is a decent man. Although he sometimes tries not to, I think that he has inadvertently listened to one or two of the arguments made in the House and made some helpful changes in the second Chamber. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to him for that. If he can do it on a number of occasions, he can probably do so on two or three more, giving the Bill the wonderful finale that it so thoroughly deserves.

We have heard about the changes proposed in the other House with which the Government wish to disagree. Given the time available, I will not go over them again, but they relate to staff costs and material costs not being included in the definition of the amount to be spent, which will of course diminish. I urge the House and the Government to support these sensible proposals as they are supported by the Select Committee. In principle, we would not wish staff costs to be excluded, but on this occasion, as we are running into an almost immediate election, with 469 days until election day, it makes sense to be practical by not including them.

The Leader of the House referred to the three amendments on reporting requirements that I tabled on behalf of my Committee. The essence of this is that we are dealing with charities. As representatives of the second Chamber eloquently explained, many of those institutions do not have the infrastructure to handle heavy bureaucracy. The Government have accepted that argument, to some extent, and I ask them to look again at our amendments. It is surely not in anyone’s interests, least of all those of the Government, who say so much about deregulation, to place such huge amounts of red tape and bureaucratic burdens on to charitable institutions that are trying to participate in the democratic life of this country. Difficulties are placed in their way by excessive reporting, and surely that is not what the Government are trying to achieve.

The crux of the matter is that we are coming up to one minute to midnight and no one has identified the problem that part 2 is intended to address. What was the burning issue that led people to demand it? Unlike part 1 on lobbying, where clearly abuses were taking place, although none of them is being addressed, part 2 is not needed to deal with any abuses, public scandals or big political issues. Even now, at one minute to midnight, the question of what the problem is has not been satisfactorily answered.

[Paul Flynn]

Has it occurred to my hon. Friend that the Government have done a clever bit of magician’s deception in successfully stirring up a great deal of public anger about the charities part of the Bill in order to distract attention from the fact that the much needed first part of the Bill is woefully inadequate?

[Mr Allen]

My hon. Friend is a very eminent and distinguished member of the Select Committee, but he is a very cynical person if he believes that that is why the Government have done this. [Interruption.] No, we are talking about charities and I think we should be charitable in saying that it is not conspiracy but incompetence.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Allen]

I will, but for the last time because I know that colleagues want to speak.

[Dr Francis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in effect, part 2 restricts rather than regulates civil society?

[Mr Allen]

Very much so, unfortunately. That is why the amendments improve a Bill that needed and still needs a great deal of improvement. I was quoted as saying that it was a dog’s breakfast, and one hon. Member said that that was an insult to canine nutritionists. The Deputy Leader of the House said that the Bill has been transformed. Well, the dog’s breakfast might have been transformed from Winalot to Pedigree Chum, but it is probably not much better than that.

The issue is incredibly serious. There will now be an opportunity once every five years for charities, voluntary sector organisations and everyone else to participate in a general election, which is the lifeblood of our democracy, with its give and take and its challenge from all sorts of organisations from the League Against Cruel Sports to the Countryside Alliance. People are entitled to participate and we should facilitate their participation, but we are not doing so.

16:15

For example, people have said that there will be severe unintended consequences, that they do not believe there is legal certainty and that they fear the Bill. Who are the crazy people saying that? They signed a letter. They are Rabbi Sybil Sheridan of the Assembly of Reform Rabbis UK, Neil Thorns of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Farooq Murad of the Muslim Council of Britain and Paul Parker of the Quakers—absolutely fringe elements who are a danger to society! They genuinely feel that their activities during a period of political interaction and give and take could land them in trouble.

I speak as the chair of a charity, and should perhaps declare an interest as such. From my experience of sitting through every day spent on the Bill in this House, I do not have the confidence to give my charity a definitive answer about whether we could be caught by some of the provisions. The question is not whether my charity or any other wishes that to happen, but whether it is possible. That possibility is the reason there is a chilling effect, not that charities will clearly be caught.

What do we rely on? We rely on the good faith of the Leader of the House. I am sure he means it when he says, “Don’t worry—all that activity won’t be caught.” If that is the case, why do we need the Bill when we already have very strong provisions to catch people, particularly in the charitable field, who seek to offend? I again ask why. What problem are we trying to address? There is a chilling effect, and reassurances in Hansard and keeping our fingers crossed will not be enough.

We have a fixed-term Parliament, and if we choose to take the opportunity, that will give us a year’s interactive, open debate during which we might do cross-party or all-party stuff to clear all the dross out of the way, with a ding-dong during the last 28 days as normal. We might start to work together to find answers, and to campaign together with civic society and all those institutions, like our charities and voluntary sector organisations. What a wonderful debate and what a great opportunity it would be for our democracy to have such a year; we know that the election is 469 days away. It could be a great liberating opportunity, but what will happen if Parliament and the Government are held in contempt by the electorate? We will throw away that opportunity and be unable to take the chance to involve people. In one or two years’ time, we will look back at this as a terrible wasted opportunity.

[John Thurso]

I briefly repeat a comment I made on the previous group of amendments: the Bill left this place in an unsatisfactory state, but went to the Lords and had a considerable amount of work done to it. A huge number of the amendments made were either proposed by the Government after listening or accepted by them following a debate. I repeat that my noble Friend Lord Tyler was central to much of that process, and the Front Benchers Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, among others, did a splendid job in that regard.

When I spoke to Lord Tyler, he told me that he shared two of my major concerns, which he expressed very well, about the degree of bureaucracy and the degree of complexity, and everything he did was to try to remove bureaucracy or complexity. He made the very good point that the Bill builds on the PPERA, but that the process of engagement with charities and the third sector threw up the fact that many of them did not understand that earlier legislation and were not perhaps compliant with it. Therefore, if nothing else, this process has helped them to understand what is necessary.

I will touch quickly on the Lords amendments that have succeeded. The fundamental change was raising the registration rates to £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We began with the position that the rates would be halved and they have now been doubled. That is a significant change. It has lifted the vast majority of smaller organisations and charities out of the legislation completely. That is a considerable concession by the Government and it has achieved a great deal. I make the small point, in parentheses, that I do not know why the rate for Scotland should be half that for England, but I shall move on quickly.

Charities also had a critical concern about coalitions. That has been dealt with by removing all the burdens from low-spending participants in a campaigning coalition and allowing the larger campaigners to provide a single report on their behalf. That has lifted a large potential burden. That change, along with other changes such as removing the requirement for nil returns and the review, has changed dramatically the way in which the Bill can be viewed. It is now much closer to achieving the principles that I want to see, which are greater transparency and accountability in third parties. It is also less heavy-handed with those who are not a target, such as small, local organisations and charities—virtually all charities are exempt.

This process has allowed good, informed criticism to be taken on board. It has also allowed us to flush out some very ill-informed criticism. I received an e-mail from a constituent yesterday urging me to support Lord Tyler, which of course is always a pleasure, because he wanted to continue to campaign against wind farms in our area and because he wanted to be able to campaign against the building of houses on the battlefield of Culloden if anybody ever suggested it. I was able to point out to him with complete certainty that those two things would never be covered by the Bill. There are many people out there who think that it does cover such matters. It is important to have the opportunity to dispel those ideas.

I will turn to the two principal amendments that I wanted to discuss. Lords amendment 108 removes a huge raft of things that were included in the proposal before their lordships. I took the trouble of finding schedule 3 in its unamended form. The Lords amendment relates to sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5) of paragraph 1, which include not only transport costs, but some pretty heavy bits of expenditure, such as public rallies. Their lordships were right to think that they had cut too far and too hard.

I urge my colleagues to support the Government in rejecting Lords amendment 108 for a simple procedural reason. If we accept it, that will be the end of the matter. However, if we do not accept it and send it back to their lordships, they can, through ping-pong, propose something that takes account of the justifiable concerns about transport and so forth but does not go as far as this amendment, which has clearly gone too far.

[Mark Durkan]

Lords amendment 108 does not take out the major costs of rallies and big events. It takes out only any costs in respect of remuneration or expenses that are payable to staff in relation to rallies. It does not relate to the overall costs of rallies, such as equipment and hiring space. Those would not be taken out by the amendment.

[John Thurso]

I am well aware of that. However, the staff costs, particularly in relation to sub-paragraphs (3) and (5), will be considerable, so they should be included. I would like to give their lordships the chance to think again about that.

On Lords amendments 26 and 27, I should explain that subsection (1) of proposed new section 2A in Lords amendment 26 is an amendment made on Report by my noble Friend Lord Tyler. It is a clear amendment that does exactly what it says on the tin, and I have almost complete sympathy with it. Lord Harries added subsections (2) and (3), which render the amendment unworkable. If I may paraphrase what Lord Tyler said, the lawyers have got hold of it and they have gone far too far. In particular, it is almost impossible to work out how one would begin to consider policing subsection (3), which is so defective that it has rendered what was a sound amendment almost completely ineffective.

To those of us who like legislating, it might be quite fun to look at different definitions, but I seriously contend—I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who often helps me out on such matters, will agree—that subsections (2) and (3), particularly subsection (3), put a coach and horses through the very good amendment my noble Friend put through on Report in the other place. I suggest, therefore, that we reject it, because their lordships should be allowed to have another look at it. The intention was to simplify the Bill, making it easier and taking out bureaucracy. The amendment would, however, introduce massive complexity and a great deal of bureaucracy, and runs utterly counter to the other amendments that have been accepted. For that reason, I accept the Government’s view that it cannot be accepted and that their lordships should try again.

My final point is that there is an inconsistency. The limit is now £9,750, and the registration is £10,000. The fact is that any organisation in our constituencies could spend £9,000 and we would not know about it until after the election. It is a shame that we have not had a chance to address such an unintended consequence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, may I just point out to the House that we have some 17 minutes left of this debate and that if each Member takes only just more than six minutes then everyone will have a chance to speak? If Members speak for longer than that, not everyone will have a chance to speak. It is up to Members to behave as they see fit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the shadow Minister on raising important issues. I do not say for one second that the Minister is ignoring them, but the fact is that charities are not convinced by the arguments put forward. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said that the charities in his area have not contacted him with concerns. I can tell him that the charities in my constituency, and across the whole of Northern Ireland, have stated clearly that they do have concerns, and I want to present them now.

I support Lords amendment 45, which was tabled by Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He outlined some of the issues relating to seeking to narrow the requirement for third-party campaigners to account for staff costs, which has come up again and again. Charities in my area are deeply concerned by the original proposals, and we must address this. It is beneficial for staff costs to continue to be included in controlled expenditure in relation to election material, marketing and canvassing, and when they directly relate to communicating with the electorate. The simplification of the requirements will make them much more understandable and workable for charities. I agree with commentators who say that that will make it easier to comply with the proposed legislation. One need only ask any farmer about being bound in red tape by European legislation that stifles everything to understand why it would be prohibitive for charities to undertake the original provisions.

[Dr Whiteford]

Might that not also deter small charities from campaigning in the first place, as well as placing those that do under a regulatory burden?

16:30

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady, and that issue will run through all my comments.

I am thankful that the Lords has seen fit to make these amendments for our consideration. Were the amendments to fail, many charities could be prevented from doing charitable work, which would be a tragedy. The amendment on constituency limits will rightly reduce the regulatory burden on charities and voluntary organisations campaigning in individual constituencies. In particular, it will more clearly define the activities covered by the constituency controls so that they cover spending on election material sent to voters and households and unsolicited phone contact with them.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I am concerned that the amendment would exempt bill boards and advertising hoardings and allow a vast amount of money to be spent on them throughout our constituencies, without coming under the constituency limit.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and clearly those are issues that all charities have concerns about.

The amendment would also reduce the amount of red tape for charities simply seeking to help people who are unable to bear their own burdens. I have been contacted by charities—in Northern Ireland and across the UK—highlighting how some constituency boundaries split towns between two constituencies. For example, Ballynahinch is not only in my beautiful constituency, but in the constituency of South Down—the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) is not here—which makes clear why the amendment is necessary. I hope, therefore, that the House, like me, will support it.

I also support the amendment that would allow charities that work together in coalition to campaign together. Our recent debate on rare diseases, such as Duchenne and Prader-Willi, in Westminster Hall brought together and gave a voice to many different charity and health bodies. It was clear that such charities were so small that it made more sense for them to campaign and fundraise together under the umbrella of rare diseases while still working for their individual illnesses. The current situation is working and should be allowed to continue working, and the amendment goes some way to allowing them to work together to the benefit of all member groups. It would also eliminate the unfair anomaly in existing law that means that a partner in a charity coalition campaign on one issue would be limited in its spending on other, totally unrelated issues by virtue of the continued spending by other charity coalition partners.

Mencap has said:

“However, we are still concerned about the potential of the Bill to curtail legitimate campaigning by voluntary and community organisations. On a practical level we are concerned that staffing costs are still to be included in regulated expenditure and the rules around separate organisations working on joint campaigns are still unclear. We are most concerned about the subjective way in which the Bill aims to determine the intentions of a campaigning activity. Charities are already bound by charity law which prohibits party political campaigning. However, this Bill applies to campaigning by organisations which might influence elections—whether they intended to or not.”

We need clarity on how that issue of intention to influence will be dealt with, but we have not had it from the Minister. I agree with the comments of the shadow Minister and of the charities and organisations concerned, and I support the Lords amendments.

[Dr Francis]

At the outset, I should say that I speak this afternoon as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Many of these amendments relate to amendments suggested in the Committee’s report, and I wish to acknowledge that the Government have moved considerably in its direction, particularly in relation to raising the threshold for non-party organisations to register with the Electoral Commission; to raising the spending limits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; to reducing the regulatory period for the 2015 general election; and to introducing a review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. Once again, we wish to place on the record our thanks to the Government for making those changes.

Let me move on to deal with some of the specific amendments. Given the concerns about the potential “chilling effect” of the Bill, it will be important for any post-election review of the non-party campaigning rules to include a careful examination of the impact of part 2 on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and association. Does the Minister envisage that such a review will specifically examine the practical effects of the Bill’s provisions on campaigners’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of association?

It is worth noting some of the comments made in the second Chamber about the Government’s proposed post-election review of non-party campaigning rules after the 2015 general election. In withdrawing his amendment to exclude charities from the rules, Lord Phillips of Sudbury said that the review of the workings of this legislation in the wake of the 2015 election would be vital. In the discussion on the Government’s amendment to establish the post-election review, Lord Harries also stressed that this review would be essential.

In welcoming the Government amendment, let me nevertheless express once again unease at the fact that so much reliance is being placed on post-legislative scrutiny, particularly when there is an election in the intervening period, and repeat the concerns raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the lack of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny prior to the Bill’s publication.

Before concluding, let me draw attention, as other Members from across the Chamber have done, to the views and contribution of constituents. One of my constituents, Sylvia John of Briton Ferry, is one of many who wrote to urge me to support the Lords amendments, which I shall do later. Her words were echoed by Children in Wales, one of the most respected charitable organisations in Wales, whose chief executive, Catriona Williams said that the Bill remains “deeply problematic”.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend makes specific reference to Wales, and it is important to bear in mind that this Bill will impact not just on general elections, but on elections in the devolved areas of the United Kingdom, too.

[Dr Francis]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and his Select Committee for the tremendous work carried out right up to today, and particularly last night, to deliver the final report. We have had the benefit of being able to read it today. I also commend the work of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, under the wise chairmanship of Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

[Mark Durkan]

As a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I shall speak in support of the amendments we tabled, which would further enhance some of the Lords amendments. I welcome the amendments made in the House of Lords and I want to acknowledge that the Government have listened to some concerns. In particular, the Deputy Leader of the House made a visit to Belfast and heard from a number of groups, large and small, about the range of concerns they had. He signalled some of the adjustments that needed to be made and followed through on some of them, but limitations remain on others. People were pleased to have that direct hearing, but they are not necessarily satisfied that the Bill’s current shape and scope allays all their concerns. They are particularly concerned about the Government’s attempt to overturn Lords amendments 26, 27 and 108. That is what is providing the residual apprehension or concern about how things will go.

Some amendments were tabled, on the Select Committee’s behalf, by our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). Some propose to take some of the Lords amendments further and to de-clutter by reducing the red tape and providing a more sensible application and interpretation of the Bill. That is what the amendments are about; they are not about creating any gaping loopholes for big money to surge in and influence election campaigns, or indeed other things.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said that he had had no word from any of the small charities and other small groups in his constituency. I have had word from a great many, not just in my constituency but well beyond. Moreover, I have heard from no one about big money being thwarted. This is a major worry for groups who want to be involved in positive campaigns—not to influence election outcomes, but, perhaps, to influence people’s input by encouraging them to participate in elections and think and ask about the issues that they entail. Usually, in the year before an election campaign they are encouraging parties to make manifesto commitments.

[Steve McCabe]

In all his research on the Bill, has the hon. Gentleman come across any justification for the restriction to 2% of the maximum spend? Is there a rationale for it, or did the Government pluck it out of thin air?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that it may have been the latter. I have heard no significant or understandable rationale on which I have been able to rely.

While I accept that, in theoretical and intellectual terms, we want to ensure that we are proof against the PAC model in the future, I think that if we really want to prevent big money from influencing election campaigns, we ought to be legislating against what people such as Lord Ashcroft are able to do with their money, and its impact—its targeted impact—on particular constituencies. But of course that is not happening.

As for the legitimate third-party campaigning that we are discussing in the context of Northern Ireland, it is not influencing the outcome of elections, but is serving as a positive additive to politics, and helping to move our politics on. Money is not used to launch rallies aimed at mobilising voting in a particular direction, and encouraging people to vote for this or that party. People are generally encouraged to create hustings in order to improve the quality of debate, and to widen the range of issues that are discussed beyond the usual binary divide in Northern Ireland.

We should not be legislating in the pretence that some big problem or subversive interest is at work, and we should not be legislating in ways that disable the healthy and legitimate engagement in politics that I thought we all wanted to encourage.

Lords amendment 16 agreed to.

Lords amendments 17 and 104 to 107 agreed to.

Schedule 3

Controlled Expenditure: Qualifying Expenses

Motion made and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 108.—(Mr Lansley.)

16:43

Division 188

Ayes: 310

---

Conservative: 271
Liberal Democrat: 37
Independent: 1

Noes: 278

---

Labour: 240
Liberal Democrat: 10
Conservative: 7
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 108 disagreed to.

17:10

More than four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Clause 28

Constituency limits

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Mr. Lansley.)

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 274.

16:58

Division 189

Ayes: 0

---

Conservative: 270
Liberal Democrat: 42
Independent: 1

Noes: 0

---

Labour: 241
Conservative: 8
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 3
Independent: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 27 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 19 to 25, 28 to 74, 109 to 116, 18 and 75 to 100 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 88 and 100.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 108, 26 and 27;

That Greg Clark, Nic Dakin, Greg Hands, John Thurso and Stephen Twigg be members of the Committee;

That Greg Clark be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Anne Milton.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Commission Work Programme 2014

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The Twenty-fifth report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC83-xxii.]

17:12

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014; agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.

This year’s work programme is the last for the current European Commission. It covers what the Commission is giving priority to in the final months of its mandate as well as some new initiatives and, of course, it does not cover everything that the European Union and its institutions are doing.

In last year’s debate on the annual work programme, right hon. and hon. Members focused in particular on the process of our scrutiny of European legislation. Prior to this year’s debate, the House’s European Scrutiny Committee published a report on reforming scrutiny in this place. I want to give the House an assurance that the Government are considering that report with the seriousness that it would expect and we will publish our response as soon as we can.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the Minister has referred to the report and to the formal response that the Government must give to it under the conventions of the House, I think it might be appropriate to mention the reactions of some members of the Government—I will not say everybody—to the proposals. They were described as “unrealistic” by one Minister and “unworkable” by another. That is not entirely consistent with the formalities of the convention that applies, but I think we will find that we will get a good response, as the Government have also said that it is a very important study.

[Mr Lidington]

This is an important study, which makes a large number of recommendations. The recommendations in my hon. Friend’s report have a bearing on business, which is the responsibility of pretty much every Government Department. The discussions that we are having at both official and ministerial level reflect the breadth of the areas of policy covered by my hon. Friend’s Committee.

The Committee noted, in its report recommending today’s debate, that—

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

One second.

The Committee recommended that the debate on the work programme should provide a useful starting point in the upstream scrutiny of EU proposals, and should help Parliament to make an early assessment of those dossiers in which parliamentarians are likely to take particular interest.

[Wayne David]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I wanted to intervene immediately after the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), because we read in the press that the Prime Minister had received a letter signed by 95 Conservative MPs supporting what the European Scrutiny Committee had said. Has the Prime Minister in fact received that letter, and do we know who those 95 people are?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that I do not inspect the Prime Minister’s correspondence on a daily basis. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out more about that letter he could go and talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, or my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), or others who helped to draft that letter.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but may I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am conscious of the fact that we have a limited amount of time for the debate. There are a number of Members on both sides of the House who want to participate, so while I shall try to give way wherever possible I am conscious of the need to allow others to speak.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The Minister is absolutely right, and he has been most courteous to the House. I trust that other Members will be courteous to the House in keeping interventions brief.

[Mr Lidington]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson).

[Chris Williamson]

Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said about that letter, it was reported yesterday in the Evening Standard that a Minister had described the people who had signed the letter as “thick”. Will the Minister say whether it was him or another Foreign Office Minister who did so?

[Mr Lidington]

I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. If he directs his attention to the Government motion and, for that matter, to the European Scrutiny Committee report referring the document for debate, he will find that nowhere in the motion or the report is there any reference to letters from any right hon. or hon. Member on either side of the House. I propose to concentrate on the matters that the European Scrutiny Committee has referred to the House for attention and consideration.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. May I again reflect what the Minister has said? The matter before us does not concern letters to the Prime Minister. Members are required to stick to the matter before us.

[Mr Lidington]

This year, a new European Commission will take office. An important task is therefore to focus on those areas of the work programme that the United Kingdom Government would like to see as continued priorities for the next European Commission. It should come as no surprise to the House if I say that the Government’s priority is focusing on measures that encourage growth and jobs, and which are intended to deepen the single market, and on better and less costly and burdensome regulation so that we can free businesses in Britain and throughout Europe to compete vigorously in the global marketplace.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a sensible reform for the European Union is to spend more than the 2% of its budget that it currently spends on trade on further promoting free trade agreements with countries around the world that could help precisely in generating jobs and growth in all EU member states?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The directorate general dealing with trade does a pretty effective job, although, as she says, it accounts for only a very small proportion of the EU’s overall spending. If we are looking for a reallocation of priorities, I would agree that in terms of resource, good people, political priority and political will, global trade agreements should be a key focus for the UK and Europe as a whole.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend sense in the Commission’s work programme, including in the transition to the new Commission, a move to that agenda, to which we attach such importance for growth?

[Mr Lidington]

I do find in the Commission’s work programme an explicit acknowledgement that, for example, the EU is currently falling short in the implementation of the single market in services and the digital economy, and that more needs to be done in those respects. I also find an explicit commitment by the Commission to the priority that needs to be given to growth and jobs. In talking to Ministers from other European countries, I find them acutely aware of the challenge that Governments throughout the continent face from global competition, but also from the high levels of youth unemployment, which, tragically, we see in far too many countries.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I give my right hon. Friend an example of an area in which the work programme includes a commitment that is burdensome to business, which has been scrutinised by the Justice Committee and needs to be changed, and it is the draft data protection directive?

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, my right hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows, the Government’s belief is that data protection legislation is better handled by way of a directive than by way of a regulation, which does not allow properly for subsidiarity and the different systems in different member states. As a Government we are determined to ensure that the modernised data protection regime, which we need, in part to serve a continental-wide digital economy, is shaped in such a way as to minimise the regulatory burden on businesses. We want those data protection arrangements to be such that, yes, they give adequate protection to data subjects, but they do not hinder business from going out, winning the contracts and creating the jobs, as we all want to see them do.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

After a slow start the Government have realised the economic benefits of fracking to this country’s economy. Under annexe 2, on new initiatives, there are the regulations that will apply to fracking across Europe. Does he share my worries that there are members of the Commission who want to use those regulations to stop the exploitation of shale gas?

[Mr Lidington]

There are people in the institutions and elsewhere who certainly support policies that would inhibit the development of shale gas resources. We have made it very clear, from the Prime Minister down, that we believe that such a course would be wrong and would be a betrayal of the interests of European business, of European consumers, who would like to benefit from the lower energy prices that shale development would bring, and above all of the interests of those who are out of work, where a shale gas industry would not only provide additional employment in its own right, but, by maintaining a downward pressure on energy prices, would make it possible for more companies throughout the economy to hire additional employees. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the Governments of countries such as Poland and Hungary, which also have a clear commitment to the freedom of member states to develop shale gas resources in the interests of consumers and producers alike.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had a bite of the cherry already, so I will make some progress.

It is good that the Commission has focused on continuing negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. The Government estimate that the benefits of that deal to this country could be worth up to £10 billion a year, or more than £380 for every household. Frankly, I would like to have seen even greater priority and emphasis in the work programme for that potentially transformative deal. I would also like other ongoing negotiations to have been mentioned, such as those on an EU-Japan free trade agreement, which we estimate could be worth £5 billion a year for the United Kingdom.

The Government also welcome the objectives of the telecoms package and the other measures in the work programme that would contribute towards the completion of the digital single market. For the EU to remain competitive, the single market needs to keep pace with developments in the digital economy. The digital economy is not only helping to connect, inform and entertain us, but driving innovation and growth across our economies.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

The Minister talks about the need to deepen and complete the single market. At the same time he complains about excessive regulation. Does he not recognise that much of the excessive regulation has been brought in under the auspices of a single market, and that by extending and deepening it, he greatly expands the scope for excessive regulation, which produces economic stagnation?

[Mr Lidington]

I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, but—if I may say so—I think that he oversells his case. It is true that we can have European regulation, just as we can at national level, that is overly prescriptive, overly complicated and far too costly as far as business is concerned. Therefore, one of the tests that we have in mind when judging Commission proposals is whether in the first place the introduction of a single regulatory regime to govern a European single market would produce a net benefit for business, compared with the 28 different national regimes that would be eliminated as a consequence of a single European regulatory framework. Also, Ministers in this Government have argued repeatedly that we think the Commission could make more use of the principle of mutual recognition, which after all was made clear in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice some decades ago in the Cassis de Dijon case, rather than relying all the time on the detailed harmonisation of national arrangements, which can easily lead one into the sort of overly complicated system that my hon. Friend fears.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that completing the single market for services is so important for jobs and growth across the EU that we should be seriously considering whether those countries that want to proceed should continue under enhanced co-operation, leaving behind those counties, such as Germany, that are far less willing to open their markets for services to other successful counties, such as Britain?

[Mr Lidington]

Although my first preference would be a successful negotiation that would deliver a thoroughgoing single market in services across the whole European Union, if that ends up not being possible, my hon. Friend’s point about ending up with those countries that are willing to commit themselves to earlier and faster liberalisation doing so under enhanced co-operation is a very strong one indeed.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

Securing investment in Europe’s energy infrastructure is critical to our long-term, sustainable economic growth. A cost-effective, flexible and ambitious 2030 climate and energy framework will provide clear and stable conditions for the up to €1 trillion of investment that European countries will require in the energy sector over the next 10 years. If designed in the right way, such a framework would complement domestic reforms here to ensure that the investment is forthcoming.

As has already been said in interventions, reducing the regulatory burdens on business is integral to boosting economic growth. The Commission’s REFIT—regulatory fitness and performance—programme was a welcome step towards reducing the burden of EU regulation on business and eliminating those barriers to growth, but we believe that the Commission needs to be more ambitious still to ensure that businesses feel real change.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I remind the Minister that the REFIT programme includes proposals for the harmonising of VAT and the introduction of a common corporation tax base, both of which Her Majesty’s Government oppose. It is not about deregulating; it is about increasing the power of the European Union.

[Mr Lidington]

There will indeed be measures in the REFIT package, as in other Commission proposals, with which we disagree. We have made it clear that we will continue to resist both the proposals to which my hon. Friend alludes.

It is also fair to say, though, that at a time when the Government are urging the Commission to act on the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s EU business taskforce, the Commission has already introduced some measures that implement what this Government, either off their own bat or by means of the business taskforce report, have been recommending. We have seen practical and proportionate rules on country of origin labelling for food and a member state agreement to a streamlined approach to the clinical trials regulation, with formal agreement due later this year. In addition, the Commission has committed itself to withdrawing the access to justice in environmental matters directive, as the business taskforce explicitly called on it to do.

We now want further action on the 30 specific recommendations in the business taskforce’s report, including on the REACH—registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—directive to lessen its burden on small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular. Such radical, business-friendly reform is in the interests of job creation and business growth not just here in the United Kingdom but throughout the continent as a whole. We welcome the Commission’s commitment not to table new health and safety rules for hairdressers or to introduce new rules on ergonomics, and its commitment to withdraw a number of other proposals that we have long opposed on the grounds that they would impose unnecessary costs on business.

However, with regard to the REFIT package, it is disappointing that the majority of the repeals and withdrawals in the work programme relate to obsolete measures. We think that future withdrawals should focus on EU measures that impose the biggest burdens on businesses and do not deliver significant and commensurate benefits. We will not only continue to press this with the Commission but look for every opportunity to build alliances with other EU member states and, for that matter, with enlightened and supportive members in the European Parliament such as our colleague Mr Malcolm Harbour, to ensure that the efforts to drive down business costs and increase the competiveness of European businesses are maintained.

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I am going to make progress because I have been speaking for quite a long time.

[Wayne David]

When the Minister says that aspects of the EU work programme are disappointing, does he not really mean that the Government have failed to influence the Commission successfully?

[Mr Lidington]

No. I do not think that any member state would be able to say that it unreservedly welcomes and endorses, absolutely everything in the Commission’s work programme. Of the measures described in the work programme, there are some that we positively welcome, others where we think the proposal seems okay at first sight but we very much want to examine the detail of the promised measure before we come to a final conclusion, and others where we are quite open in saying that we think the Commission’s suggestion is mistaken. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), we have already expressed considerable concerns about the data protection package, and we will continue to negotiate to try to ensure that it does not over-burden business while providing adequate protection for personal data.

Nor can we welcome the draft regulation to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. We believe that the Commission’s evidence for this proposal is weak, and we will continue to challenge it on its unacceptable, rather summary response to the yellow card that national Parliaments raised about it.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Lidington]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who follows this issue very closely.

[Mr Clappison]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he convey to the Commission how deeply disappointing it is for Parliaments to gather the requisite number of signatures for petitions from individual Chambers and for the Commission then peremptorily to say that it will go ahead all the same? That is very dispiriting for Parliaments.

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree. It would be easier to accept the Commission’s unwelcome decision if, at the very least, it had produced a detailed explanation of its reasons and showed proper respect for the 19 different reasoned opinions. I continue to agree with my hon. Friend that the proposal is wrong, but I made it very clear at the last meeting of the General Affairs Council that I regarded the Commission’s behaviour on the measure as unacceptable, and I was pleased that Ministers from some other member states then spoke out and endorsed my criticisms of its approach.

The House will be aware that tomorrow marks a year since the Prime Minister’s speech setting out a vision for European Union reform. Today, there is growing support across Europe for reform and for accepting that it needs to become more competitive and democratic, so that it is a Europe in which, to quote the Dutch Government, our enterprise is based on being

“European where necessary, national where possible.”

As I said last week at the very stimulating conference organised by Open Europe and the Fresh Start group, we will get behind the proposal made by the Dutch Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans, for a governance manifesto for the new Commission—agreed by the 28 accountable national Heads of State and Government—that lays out what Europe should focus on and, crucially, what should be left to member states. On the new items in the work programme, the House can be assured that we will be vigilant in relation to the subsidiarity principle and do our utmost to ensure that action is taken at EU level only when that is the correct level to take proposals forward.

We already work with partners across Europe to deliver concrete changes that benefit this country and every EU member state, including the first ever cut in the EU’s seven-year budget, which protects the British rebate; agreement on a single European patent after 23 years of negotiation, which safeguards the intellectual property of innovative British businesses; keeping the UK out of any eurozone bail-out facility, which safeguards British interests; and abolishing the obscene policy of discarding caught fish, which is a key element of wholesale reform of the common fisheries policy. It can therefore be done: reform is possible and it is happening. However, the Government recognise that there is much more still to do to make Europe more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable. Ministers will use every opportunity to push forward that agenda.

17:34

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the European Commission’s work programme for 2014. I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its useful report. The Committee suggested that a debate before Christmas would be timely, and given the thinness of the Government’s agenda for this House, it is surprising that this debate has not taken place earlier.

The work programme published on 22 October is shorter than usual, not least because European Parliament elections are coming up in May and because the new college of commissioners will take office later this year. Our ability to influence the work programme’s direction to achieve UK objectives and protect our national interest depends in no small part on having good relationships with our allies in Europe. Yet, instead of defending our interests in Europe, the Prime Minister all too often puts party before country, opting for policy positions and language that appease Eurosceptic Back Benchers and alienate allies in Europe.

The result is that the Prime Minister finds himself in an increasingly isolated position in Europe. Indeed, the Prime Minister has been attracting an increasing number of openly hostile comments from crucial European allies. Germany, Poland, France and Bulgaria are our allies in Europe, and yet senior figures in their Governments—most recently the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier—have given briefings on their profound disagreement with our Prime Minister’s views. The political weight of the people in those countries who have made their disagreement with the Prime Minister known and the tone in which they have done so are concerning. Once again, the Conservative party is pushing Britain into the isolated corner that John Major’s Government left us in.

The Prime Minister has promised to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership of the European Union. He said that treaty change will deliver important opportunities to repatriate a series of powers that are apparently held by the EU and which he thinks ought to be back with the United Kingdom. Having looked at the work programme, I confess that I cannot see a major treaty change in preparation. It is far from clear that the treaty change on which the Conservative party is banking is likely to happen soon. If the Minister were to be honest with the House about that, I suspect that he would say that he is starting to realise that the game is up. The Chancellor’s recent plaintive call for treaty change in the context of banking union gave the impression that he knows that the possibility of such treaty change is retreating. Even if we assume that treaty change will happen, we still have absolutely no idea which powers the Conservative party wants to repatriate. The Minister has once again failed to tell us today.

The work programme priorities for 2014—economic and monetary union; smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; justice and security; and external action—are critical to the UK. In particular, a strong and stable economy in Europe is crucial to British jobs, security and prosperity. As the UK continues to battle through the Government’s cost of living crisis, with falling wages, rising prices and stagnating growth, our continued membership of and active engagement in the European Union are crucial to Britain’s economic prosperity. Almost half the UK’s trade and foreign investments come from the European Union. More than 3.5 million jobs in the UK depend on our membership of the EU.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the figure of 3 million jobs is a monumental myth. It came out 10 years ago and was denied by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which described it as Goebbels propaganda.

[Mr Thomas]

The information that I gave was confirmed as recently as 2011 in a written parliamentary answer from the Foreign Secretary. Who am I not to believe the Foreign Secretary on a matter of such importance? If the Foreign Secretary’s view is not good enough for the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, perhaps I could point him towards recent research by the CBI, which estimates that our membership of the EU is worth between £62 billion and £78 billion, which equates to about 4% to 5% of the country’s total economic output or about £3,000 per UK household per year.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I will give way in a moment.

In short, the Prime Minister is willing to take the risk of a £3,000 hit to the living standards of UK households from a British exit from the European Union in order to try to paper over the divisions in his party.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will tell us whether he was one of the 95 who signed the recent letter.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I was proud to be one of the 95. I might mention that if I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman has quoted a figure for the contribution to the economy of our membership of the European Union. What is the counterbalance to that figure? What do we pay through extra regulation and our subscription to the European Union, and does that leave us with a credit or a debit?

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman might like to go into a bit more detail with the CBI about its calculations. It appears from the detail of its work that it has weighed up the benefits of European Union membership and the “challenges”, as it describes them, such as the cost of regulation.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Thomas]

Okay. Why not?

[Martin Horwood]

Is it not part of the CBI’s rationale that to have access to the single market even countries outside the European Union need to pay a significant amount, as Norway does? Countries do not escape the cost, even if they leave the European Union.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and perhaps I should have been more enthusiastic about his intervention. It is not just Norway that has a problem. A number of countries find themselves outside the EU with very little influence on what EU regulations are approved, and they often still have to accept 75% to 90% of them

[Mr Carswell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Thomas]

I am not the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, but I am nevertheless happy to give way to him in the hope that one day he might want to join us and become my hon. Friend.

[Mr Carswell]

I always regard the hon. Gentleman as my friend. Does he not agree that Norway does two and a half times more trade per capita with the EU from outside than we do from within, and that Switzerland does four and a half times more trade per capita from outside the EU than we manage from within? It is, therefore, perfectly possible to trade more freely with Europe from outside the EU than it is from within.

[Mr Thomas]

It is interesting that a series of Norwegian politicians have confirmed their lack of influence over EU regulation, and have pointedly suggested that we do not go down the route—I know the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiastic supporter of this route—of denying ourselves the opportunity to have influence over the detail of the single market.

[Wayne David]

My hon. Friend paints a pessimistic picture of the Conservative party becoming increasingly Eurosceptic, but does he take heart from the strong rumour going around Brussels that the Conservative party might be reconsidering its decision to leave the European People’s party group and might apply to join it once again?

[Mr Thomas]

It is not for me to comment on the Conservative party’s membership, or not, of the EPP. We will no doubt hear more if there is any truth in the rumour.

The Commission’s work programme quite rightly cites deepening the single market as a key priority. It is the biggest such market in the world: a consumer market of 500 million people that generates £11 trillion in economic activity. It remains a deep concern of many in business that the Conservative party is willing to put at risk Britain’s membership of such a huge market for British goods and services. The Prime Minister also appears to be willing to risk our participation in bilateral free trade agreements, not least the hugely important potential EU-US trade agreement.

We on this side of the House recognise that to help Britain compete in the global market and uphold British living standards, the UK needs to advance, together with others in Europe, a reform agenda that promotes economic growth across the EU and, as a result, helps to tackle unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. That includes, as the work programme sets out, the need to extend and complete the single market—I agree with the Minister’s comments on the digital market—so that British companies can benefit from the opportunities of trade with our nearest allies. The operation of the single market in existing sectors must be protected in the face of potential closer integration between eurozone states.

The work programme outlines the continuing work of the Commission on economic governance and the banking union. Clearly, the stability of the eurozone, and sorting out the problems faced by banks in eurozone countries, is not just of great importance to countries in the single currency—it has a significant impact on the UK, too. Why it takes the European Union to clamp down on bankers’ bonuses, when the Government should be doing it, is a question we are still waiting to get a sensible answer on from Ministers. In this country, we still need real reform of competition in our banking sector to help small businesses get the support they need to grow, employ more people at decent wages and help Britain earn its way to better living standards.

Another important theme of the work programme is European co-operation on justice and security. The Commission is currently negotiating with the UK on the justice and security measures that we can opt back into. Our police and security forces are rightly working ever closer with their counterparts across Europe, co-operating on issues such as international terrorism, organised crime and human trafficking. For example, we would not have seen the arrest of one of the terrorists responsible for the 7/7 attacks in London without help from our European colleagues. More than 4,000 suspected criminals have been sent back to other EU countries to face justice, more than 90% of whom were foreign citizens, and while not perfect, the European arrest warrant has helped to tackle the so-called Costa del Crime, with 49 of the 65 top UK fugitives hiding in southern Spain having been returned to face justice. In short, we depend on our European partners for intelligence and operational support in order to protect the British public and the freedoms they enjoy. To ensure that those goals continue to be realised, the Opposition want to see the EU’s collective effectiveness further improved.

As I mentioned, the Government have triggered the justice and home affairs opt-out. Indeed, the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary told the House that the block opt-out was first and foremost about bringing powers back home, yet the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), having reviewed the significance of the justice and home affairs opt-out, said,

“we see little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”

Whom should the House believe when making that judgment—our European Scrutiny Committee or the Home Secretary?

[Mr Clappison]

Will the hon. Gentleman remind us who negotiated the opportunity for a block opt-out?

[Mr Thomas]

It was one of a series of sensible reforms that the Labour party negotiated when in power. It was right that we had that judgment to make. It is clear from the work of the European Scrutiny Committee, however, that the list of measures the Government want to opt back into will not deliver what the Home Secretary and Justice Secretary claim it will—a significant repatriation of powers—or at least that appears to be the case, on the basis of the Committee’s conclusions.

It might help the House to reach our own judgment were the Government to update us on the negotiations with the European Commission on the measures they want to opt back into. For example, can the Minister reassure the House that the European arrest warrant will not be put at risk this year? If Ministers’ rhetoric is taken at face value, there remains a threat to continued British participation in European co-operation on cross-border police investigations, while UK involvement in criminal record sharing, work on trafficking and online child pornography, as well as deportation arrangements for suspected criminals, are all at risk too as a result of the opt-out. Such measures provide a vital legal process to prevent people from fleeing justice and to ensure that those responsible for crimes are held accountable.

Finally, on the tobacco products directive, the House might recall that Labour MEPs voted in favour of a range of proposals aimed at protecting children from being targeted by tobacco companies, including graphic warnings on packaging, the banning of chocolate and strawberry-flavoured cigarettes and a future ban on menthol cigarettes. Ignoring warnings from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and even the advice of their own Health Secretary, Conservative MEPs voted to weaken cigarette warnings, for weaker regulation of electronic cigarettes and to delay the ban on menthols, and blocked a ban on slim cigarettes, which I understand are particularly targeted at young women. Will the Minister tell us how those negotiations are progressing?

In general terms, the Opposition support the work programme, but 2014 will be remembered less for this programme and more, I suspect, for how the Prime Minister’s continued weakness in front of right-wing Back Benchers threatened our influence across the European Union.

17:54

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

It is important that the House considers the European Commission’s work programme, as we have done before.

The Greek presidency has the potential to make a major difference to the EU at this critical time, and we should have every hope that it will attempt to make those changes, bearing in mind the recent history of the Greek Government. Greece is arguably one of the greatest victims of the bungled “integration at any price” agenda of those behind the European project and should be well placed to showcase the dangers of recent approaches. This was an opportunity for European integration to change course, but the message from the programme of the Greek presidency is that that process of political integration and state building continues apace regardless. This document and agenda do little to address the very real concerns of ordinary voters across the EU and convey that detached superiority of a complacent unaccountable elite. At a time when Europe teeters on the brink, this work programme presents an agenda for ever-more integration, justified in language that would cause even the most cynical to take note.

We are promised that the Greek presidency will

“reverse the current trend of youth unemployment”

as part of the effort on economic growth and job creation, but it seems that the main output is to

“enhance the implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs”,

whose relevance is worthy, to say the least, of deep scrutiny. If we want to reverse the trend of youth unemployment as well as put right many of the wider ailments of the European economy, we need to revisit the entire economic model on which the European project is based. Instead of a burdensome, overbearing single market driven by a social model that is neither desirable nor affordable, we need a much lighter, more flexible and trade-focused agenda for wealth creation and prosperity.

That is not, however, the priority of the Commission. Instead, we are promised a further push on the integration of the EU and the eurozone. The work programme undertakes to push hard on banking union, and promises to

“create a well coordinated Economic and Monetary Union with a view to ending the instability and uncertainty observed in particular in the ‘periphery’.”

Are they talking about the fastest-growing economy in the world when they talk about the periphery? One wonders whether that is how they see Britain.

Perhaps of the greatest concern is that we are promised

“a particular focus on the social dimension”

of European monetary union,

“which, for the first time, will be integrated into the European Semester cycle”.

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend refers to banking union. For the last two and a half days, I have attended a conference in Brussels, in which it was explicitly said, over and over again, that it was crucial to get the banking union proposals through. They pleaded with national Governments to get those proposals through before the European elections, because they fear that if they do not get them through before then, they will never get them through.

[Mr Binley]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We know that banking union was proposed as a last-ditch effort to give some confidence to the market, but I doubt whether these are the key economic promises for businesses across the EU—that is the truth of the matter. They are a long way from where voters would like the political emphasis to be placed—especially, if I may say so, in this country.

It is difficult to reconcile these priorities with the economic realities, particularly within the eurozone. As we emerge tentatively from recession, alongside the United States, the eurozone continues to face a crisis of existential proportions. The promising picture in Ireland and Spain, as well as improved confidence, is more than offset by the risk of a widespread deflationary spiral and the worrying travails of the French economy, which, being socialist-driven, frightens most of the people in most of the countries across Europe.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is almost nothing in the Commission work programme that seems to correspond with this Government’s stated priority of trying to change and reform the EU fundamentally to our advantage?

[Mr Binley]

Tragically, this particular report makes the Government’s task even more difficult. These are real problems that need to be dealt with very quickly.

The levers of monetary policy within the single currency have been almost completely exhausted: with interest rates at just 0.25%, it seems that the Commission’s only response is a further push for integration. It is as though it were blinkered like a racehorse. It is aiming in only one direction which everyone believes will lead to failure, but its duty is to ensure that jobs for the boys in the European Commission continue to be its prime objective. That problem is caused by the fact that—as we all know—the European Parliament has so little control. The answer is not to give it greater control, but to ensure that control is sent back to sovereign Parliaments where democracy is alive and well, and, I am delighted to say, living in Westminster. At least, I hope that that is what the Government will try to prove.

The proposals for banking union are chaotic, underfunded and unnecessarily complex. How can a single banking union operate in the context of national vetoes? We do not know the answer. Why is there still no agreement on responsibility for the collective costs? We do not know the answer to that either. If the banking union proposals lack credibility, they will not enhance the prospects for growth and prosperity; indeed, they will do the reverse. These proposals were made on the edge of desperation, in an attempt to give some stability to a market that clearly did not believe in a European currency.

We need a different relationship with the European Union as never before, and we need it more urgently than ever before. I call on the Government and the Minister to ensure that we start talking very soon about the red lines of negotiation. That does not mean talking about the details of renegotiation, but it does mean talking about the overall areas in which we need to renegotiate. Sadly, the Government have been immensely silent about that, and I fear that unless they start talking about it before the European elections, it could well rebound on us.

I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we have a proper discussion, so that we can present to the British people a vision of genuine negotiation on issues that genuinely matter to them. That may well enable this Parliament to do one of the greatest services that it has ever done to this country.

18:02

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

This debate matters to all our constituents, given the significance of the issues involved in the work programme. Those issues affect our economy because our largest single export market is in the rest of the European Union, and because of the priority attached to completing the single market—particularly in relation to energy and telecommunications—promoting greater access to justice, and redoubling the European Union’s efforts to offer hope and jobs to the millions of young people across the EU who are without work.

At a time when events remain very precariously balanced in Ukraine, we should also reflect on the Commission’s continuing role in overseeing the EU’s enlargement strategy. Negotiations with Serbia began this week, and association agreements with third countries are still being negotiated. The EU’s neighbourhood policy remains a great force for good in the world.

The Minister and other Government Members spoke of the risk of the United Kingdom’s being left behind, but today in The Guardian the head of Unilever spoke of the risk of its being left out altogether. We increasingly hear the voice of business in strong support of the UK’s remaining in the EU in order to enjoy the benefits that it brings to business and workers in this country.

[Graham Stringer]

Is my hon. Friend aware that BASF and Monsanto have already removed their research facilities from this country and from Europe because of European regulation relating to genetically modified foods, and that the REACH regulations—the EU regulations on the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals—are in the process of destroying heavy industry in the north-west of England? This is a complicated issue, and my hon. Friend should be presenting a more balanced argument.

[Mr Bain]

I am grateful for that intervention, but I remember that major employers such as Hitachi established themselves in the north of England precisely because we are in the EU and have access to the single market as a result. Many investors have said that if we were no longer part of the single market, many jobs in this country would be put at risk. I simply ask my hon. Friend to reflect on that point.

[Mr Cash]

If the hon. Gentleman were to read not only The Guardian but also The Daily Telegraph today, he would see references to what the chairman of Unilever said. His comments were much more in line with the arguments made from the Government Benches because he was saying that reform was needed and that far more concern was being expressed about that reform than was necessary.

[Mr Bain]

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and I do not want to do a survey of all of today’s British newspapers, but I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that the main story on the front page of the Financial Times this morning was headlined “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”, so I think we are hearing precisely the voices of business, who want to promote job creation and who are expressing the view that isolating ourselves in the way that the Government are trying to do, in a vain attempt to placate the hon. Gentleman, is simply not going to work in our long-term interests.

There are several points I want to develop in the remainder of my remarks. First, on economic and monetary union, yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s world economic outlook predicted growth in the eurozone for this year at a mere 1% and for next year at an only slightly higher 1.4%. At the same time, there are 26.5 million people out of work across the EU28, and 5.6 million of them are under the age of 25. That is a youth unemployment rate of nearly 24%. That should shame all of us. It should represent a call to action for every politician who has influence to shape the EU’s priorities to focus on job creation for the next few years.

Over the year to last November our trade deficit with the EU rose to £3.2 billion and the continued low growth in the eurozone area was one of the main contributory factors to dampened demand for our manufacturing exports. By contrast, our trade in services, including financial services, is in surplus. So it is in the interests of business and workers here in the UK to see the fault-lines in economic and monetary union repaired by putting in place a strong set of common institutions such as a single resolution mechanism and processes to allow for the resolution of distressed banks in the eurozone area. The question of whether there should be a common deposit insurance guarantee, or commonly issued debt, is certainly a more divisive issue among the eurozone members, but now that a new coalition is in place in Berlin, we should at least begin to have greater certainty about Germany’s intentions on both those fronts.

We should also welcome the fact that, contrary to many expectations—not least from Members on the Opposition Benches—the eurozone has not broken up. Indeed, Latvia became its 18th member this month. Nevertheless, in this work programme the Commission has acted on the widespread sense among peoples in Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Ireland that monetary union lacked a sufficiently social or democratic dimension, with little regard being given to the effects on inequality, wages and, most devastatingly of all, youth unemployment in some of the programmes imposed upon those member states in the name of deficit reduction. It is interesting to note that the Commission’s work programme refers to the further priority for work in this area in the coming 12 months.

As Commissioner Andor’s report today makes clear—this certainly was covered in The Daily Telegraph, to which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred earlier—eurozone members should not be left with the only options being internal devaluations or wage cuts as the means of escape from any future downturns. The price for that would simply be paid by ordinary working people with substantially lower living standards. A eurozone with a strong fiscal union component will help to avoid that possibility in the future.

When Government Members visited Brussels in October last year we heard from the office of President Van Rompuy that eurozone member states now recognise that sharing a currency and a common interest rate was not enough to avoid the effects produced by the economic shock of the great recession. So plans are now being developed to establish limited pooled resources that could help share out or equalise economic demand when some states suffer a severe dent in their output. We should welcome that. It has also been proposed that a revision of some of the terms of the fiscal pact could allow eurozone states greater flexibility to boost demand through fiscal policy in times of economic trouble. We should also welcome those proposals.

In common with weak lending to small and medium enterprises in this country, the Commission should also focus in much greater depth on how the European Investment Bank increases lending to businesses in the coming months, so that Europe’s growth rate can be expanded. In that sense, there are real parallels between the debate on the flaws of monetary union in the eurozone and the debate that will take place in my constituency and the 58 other constituencies in Scotland on the future of the economic, political and fiscal union that is the United Kingdom, which will have its resolution this September. There is a strong recognition that a properly functioning currency union requires both fiscal and political union too.

Secondly, on markets for trade and future growth, the work programme refers to the potential for a second Single European Act to complete the free movement of goods and services in areas such as energy and telecommunications. This is vital so that the EU can establish a proper digital single market.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

It is wonderful to hear a Labour Member advocating the benefits of free trade. Does he agree that the whole world should be a single market, and will he therefore join me in lamenting the existence of so many barriers to free trade across the EU customs union?

[Mr Bain]

That is a very interesting intervention. The main issue is what influence we can have over the shaping of the rules. As people in Norway and Switzerland have discovered, the only way to have influence is to be in the organisation. Those who are not full members cannot expect a full say.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The way we would influence things would be by being a member of the World Trade Organisation, of which we would be a single voting member, rather than being one of 28 in an organisation that then subscribes to the WTO. New Zealand has more influence in the WTO than we do.

[Mr Bain]

That would be all very well if we did not look at the actual voting strength that the European Union has as a bloc. How can we best maximise our influence in the WTO? It is by pooling our sovereignty and having that greater voting strength. That is what gives us the best chance of seeing the free trade agreements that will benefit businesses and employees in this country.

The EU also has to look at the nature of the growth that is being generated in our economy. It has to invest more in science and innovation—look at countries such as South Korea that have done that over an extended period. It must focus on skills, to increase employment and as a driver of future wage growth.

Thirdly, on justice and security co-operation, recent tragedies in the Mediterranean have shown the strong need for deeper joint working to prevent accidents and fatalities at sea, and to target would-be people traffickers. It is perplexing that when the rest of the EU is seeking ever closer co-operation on enforcing common standards, the UK is moving in the opposite direction, with its blanket opt-out and opaque, limited opt-in to the justice and home affairs area.

Fourthly, on the EU’s external strategy, it is worth noting that the queue of countries seeking to apply to join the European Union is far longer than that seeking or contemplating the possibility of exit from it. That must count for something, and the reasons are clear—unimpeded access to the single market, a rules-based system governed by the rule of law, and an influence in shaping common provisions. States such as Serbia, Turkey and Moldova recognise the greater influence in the world that the EU’s common foreign policy provides, the additional strength when negotiating trade rules at the WTO, and the sense that they can have another identity without ceding their own national identity. That same motivation has driven millions of people in Ukraine to urge their Government to sign the association agreement with the EU, which would do a great deal to boost that country’s economy.

The tragedy is that this Government are distracted from playing the fullest possible role in achieving these goals by their futile attempt to appease their own Back Benchers, who will not be content until the destinies of the United Kingdom and the European Union are on separate paths. For the sake of the future of 3.5 million jobs in our country, of our future prosperity and of our sense of who we are in the world, the Government should understand a little less, and condemn a little more, those whose policy for a British exit would diminish our imprint on the world, not increase it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are 27 minutes to go, and four people are seeking to catch my eye. Normally, we would also allow the Minister to wind up the debate. I therefore appeal to colleagues to help me to help them.

18:16

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having listened to what the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) has just said, I think he really needs to take into account the fact that we have a Queen’s Speech every year at about the time the work programme comes out. That Queen’s Speech is put forward on behalf of an elected Government; it contains Government proposals that come from a democratic process. We are discussing a work programme that comes from an unelected bureaucratic organisation that lays out its priorities and expects people to respond to them. There is a serious difference in character between the two. Many of the proposals in the work programme—some of which are not legislative proposals but initiatives—are brought into effect by regulation or directive.

The proposals in the Queen’s Speech, being democratically driven and debated in the House, are brought into effect by Bills of Parliament. Those Bills have Second Readings, they are amended and they have a Report stage. They go through both Houses of Parliament. However, a single paragraph in a regulation or directive could have the most profound effect on us in this country. The provision would almost certainly be driven through by a qualified majority vote. That could involve our being pushed into a consensus or being outvoted; it could also involve a co-decision with the European Parliament. We have less and less control over what goes on.

The Commission programme is, as a matter of principle, based on undemocratic systems. That is why the European Scrutiny Committee report, which has received quite a lot of attention recently, has put forward proposals relating to those provisions that could, in the national interest, be considered for disapplication or—in the case of the proposals that we do not want—subjected to a veto.

In regard to the Minister’s opening remarks, I should point out that the Government are resolutely against several provisions in the work programme, including those relating to the European public prosecutor’s office, and to the single resolution mechanism, in which we will not participate. That Government also oppose the provisions on free movement rights, to which they will not subscribe, and to those relating to the European anti-fraud office. All those matters will still be produced by the work programme, however, and we will be unable to prevent them from happening. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East is perfectly entitled to say that he would like to have the single resolution mechanism—in fact, I recall him saying that he thought we should have it. However, I can assure him that that is not the view in the City of London, and it is not the view of many people who have a great deal of knowledge of these matters.

A serious constitutional question lies in the difference between the Commission work programme and legislation that originates in this House, based on manifestos. The work programme is completely different in character and consequence for the voters we represent, in a way that is profoundly undemocratic. That is point No. 1. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I know that our job is to look at all these matters—and point No. 2 is that we do. We do that diligently throughout the year. Let us leave aside the disapplication and veto matters to which I have just referred. When I was in Brussels yesterday, I was told by very senior members of other national assemblies, “We would give our intense support to anything that would enable us in our own countries to have flexibility to prevent the imposition of legislation on banking union and so on.” Their list is endless, but they just cannot do it because of the way their constitutions are tied in. Our report recommends that the departmental Select Committees could be brought in to make assessments—

[Mr Lidington]

indicated assent.

[Mr Cash]

I am glad to see the Minister nodding, because we believe our constructive suggestion will help to make more sense of the proposals in this work programme. Not only would each Select Committee have a rapporteur who is a specialist in European matters, if that were agreed by the House, the Procedure Committee, the Liaison Committee and so on, but the generality of departmental Select Committees would consider whether they wanted to prioritise proposals that came out of the work programme and make their own political judgment on whether they thought it was in the interests of the United Kingdom to go along with those proposals. They might even absorb some of the ideas and say they were good. The bottom line is that there should be a proper democratic discussion about it all, as that would be very helpful.

The Minister has referred to a number of initiatives, but I wish to say one thing about the repeal of legislation. This relates to actions under the regulatory fitness and performance—REFIT—programme where we must be realistic. There is far too much of a burden on British business and, indeed, on businesses in the European Union as a whole. I hear that view from all my colleagues in the other national Parliaments when I visit them. I shall be going back to see them in Athens this weekend, having just come back from Brussels. They all say the same thing: they want small businesses to be much more effective; they want more opportunities for entrepreneurship; they want to have more free trade; and they want there to be the opportunity to make money, so that the taxation can be provided for public expenditure. If not, they find that they have terrible problems with their economises.

Finally, we must all be very pleased about today’s employment figures. It is a great tribute to the Government that we have seen this dramatic increase in employment. I just add, however, that a great deal of it comes from our expansion of non-EU trade. We see that in the premium selling points of Jaguar Land Rover and the companies where the money is really being made internationally. We have a deficit on current account transactions, trade and services, and imports and exports—the golden criteria. On that principle, we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of £49 billion a year. We had a surplus in the figures for the last accounts of £12 billion, but the figures for the two quarters for the beginning of the next projected flow are £5.6 billion and £6.1 billion. If that continues, as I think it will, by the end of this year we could find that, in one year, business, with the assistance of the Government—I give them credit for this, because they have been listening—will have doubled our non-EU surplus with the rest of the world. That is where the machinery for more employment and the drive for prosperity for this country will come from, which is why I am so pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the figures. At the same time, I issue one small word of caution: we should not put all our eggs in the European basket.

18:24

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate, but, like the shadow Europe Minister, I think that it would have been more appropriate to hold it some months ago, before the start of the year in which the programme applies. I have read the work programme and the Government’s response, and, like the Government, I agree with much of what is in the work programme. For example, it is difficult for anybody seriously to oppose the assertion at the beginning of the “Commission Work Programme” document:

“Promoting growth and jobs will remain at the heart of the European Commission’s work programme for 2014. These priorities will drive both the Commission’s analysis of the reforms required at national level…and the initiatives proposed at European level to support economic recovery and job creation and tackle social consequences of the crisis.”

That important statement makes it very clear what the Commission’s priorities are. It is also worth noting that the Commission goes on to say:

“But our challenges also go beyond the economy. EU action is needed to protect values and promote citizen’s rights; from consumer protection to labour rights”.

The report then specifically refers to external action, which is particularly important. I want to place it on the record that this House should acknowledge the excellent work being done by the high commissioner, Cathy Ashton. She has done a superb job. She had a difficult time for long periods, but she is now showing how effective she is.

I want to see far more emphasis in the work programme on the EU-US trade agreement. It is of great importance and I want to see more than just a passing reference to it. As far as the Balkans are concerned, reference is made to the agreements that have been struck between Serbia and Kosovo, in which Cathy Ashton has played an important role. It is a great shame that the Commission does not look a little further and make specific reference to the situation in Bosnia, because there we have something of a frozen conflict. There is scope for the international community, and the EU in particular, to make real progress. Realistically, we can look to a time in the not-too-distant future when Serbia will be joining the European Union, behind Croatia. We should also consider the possibility of Bosnia being in a position to make a valid application, but the truth is that we are a long way from that. The western Balkans have a black hole in the middle, which is Bosnia. We should be aware of that and address it.

On the issue of international external action, there is reference to Syria. Given the terrible things that are happening there as we speak, and the fact that there is only a glimmer of hope in Geneva, there should be far more emphasis in the Commission’s work programme on supporting humanitarian efforts and doing whatever is possible to support external measures so that there is not only an improvement in the lives of ordinary people but, we hope, an end to an appalling conflict.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about Syria and the need for greater emphasis on humanitarian aid. Does he share my disappointment, and that of many, that while the United Kingdom has been in the lead in terms of humanitarian aid, providing almost half a billion pounds, the material support of many EU member states has been woefully lacking?

[Wayne David]

Some EU member states have been more generous than others but we must also consider the fact that many have taken in displaced people, whereas the United Kingdom has not yet done that.

The Commission’s work programme places emphasis on the REFIT programme, which should be welcomed, but we must be realistic and recognise the modest series of references in the programme. I want a far bigger emphasis in the work programme on subsidiarity, which I do not think is mentioned as a term. That should be part of our agenda for the European Union’s development in the future. For example, I want us to reopen the debate on the future of EU regional policy, whether the member states should be more involved and whether repatriation should happen. There is also scope for us to reopen the debate on the future free movement of people, especially given the domestic debate. Unfortunately, those issues are not touched on in the work programme.

Those are some ambitions but others relate to the development of the single European market. The programme acknowledges that the internal market in services and the digital economy needs to be developed, but there is no reference to the need to develop an internal market in energy. Although there are good things in the European Commission’s work programme, it does not reflect the priorities that the Government claim, which shows the diminishing influence—in my view, because of the internal politics of the Conservative party—of the British Government on the EU agenda. As we have heard today, the Conservative party is becoming more and more Eurosceptic and as a consequence it is losing allies and supporters in the EU and is less able to negotiate things that are in our national interest. That is the reality.

Linked to that, we are also seeing a diminution of British influence on the ground in the EU institutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) referred earlier to a story, which I hope all Members will read, on the front page of the Financial Times, headlined, “City warns UK over loss of EU influence”. One point made by people in the City is that that diminishing influence is resulting in fewer Britons working inside the European Union institutions in Brussels: the British Bankers Association says that there has been a 24% decline over the past seven years. At the moment, Britain accounts for 4.6% of the total number of people employed in the institutions whereas France can claim 9.7% of them. In simple terms, that means that we have fewer people on the ground making the case for Britain’s national interest. That is bad for us.

[Mr Carswell]

Does the hon. Gentleman always judge the national interest by whether there are enough jobs for technocrats and officials? Surely the national interest is a little broader than that.

[Wayne David]

That is a very disappointing and narrow comment. We are looking at opportunities for British people to work abroad and make a real contribution to Britain’s agenda inside the EU. That is in our national interest and the hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Wayne David]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman takes the intervention, I am sure that he is only momentarily being forgetful and that he wants to hear from the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg).

[Wayne David]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed, but they need to have time to make their speeches as well. I am just gently hinting.

[Mike Gapes]

I just want to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is saying. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced a unanimous cross-party report on the issue he is talking about and the Government, in their response, recognised that there is a serious problem. Although some are clearly pleased that British people are not getting jobs in international institutions, that is clearly not the position of the Government or the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Wayne David]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is nice that there are some people who are enlightened.

To conclude, the report in the Financial Times observed that it is in Britain’s national interest to be fully engaged in the European Union. We have seen a reduction of our influence because of the internal machinations and disputes in the Conservative party. We must look carefully at what bankers are saying. Citigroup, for example, is cited in the FT article. I had a meeting yesterday with the Chemical Industries Association, which made it abundantly clear that it is in its members’ interest for Britain to be fully engaged in influencing and changing the agenda in the EU. A similar thing can be said for Unilever, Nissan, Ford, Toyota, the Swift Technology Group and easyJet—the list goes on.

Over the next few months more and more companies are likely to realise that exit from the European Union is a real threat to the interests of the people of this country. That is why it is important that we have an agenda based on reform, not withdrawal; an agenda that is constructive, not destructive; an agenda that reflects the interests and needs of this country, not the wayward drift of the Conservative party.

18:36

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I shall try to be at least as economical as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David).

On that theme, 90 minutes to debate the European equivalent of the Queen’s Speech, long after the event—the beginning of the work programme—is not adequate. Government business managers need to consider more effective scrutiny of the work programme in future. I would have liked more time to discuss the Commission’s interesting proposals to promote jobs and sustainable growth across Europe, including: the completion of the single market and important sectors such as digital services, which I am sure Conservative Members would agree with; the ambitious trade negotiation process; and—my personal favourite—the fourth rail package, to try to bring the stiff breeze of competition to our own rail industry, apart from anyone else, and to try to reduce some of our notoriously high rail costs.

I would have liked more time to look at the Commission’s programme on cross-border crime, including the attack on money laundering; at the Commission’s environmental measures, including the 2030 framework, bringing aviation into the emissions trading scheme, and a safe and secure framework for fracking; and at efforts to promote both the reduction of waste and resource efficiency in the European economy. I would have liked more time to look at consumer rights and the benefits to consumers across Europe of increased competition. I would have liked more time to discuss external action, including important action against piracy and to promote peace in the western Balkans and elsewhere.

I am disappointed that Members such as the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) could find absolutely nothing good to say about the work programme, which is regrettable, but I do not want to fall into the opposite trap of saying that everything that comes out of the European Union is good. At the risk of my future career with the Liberal Democrats, I agree on a limited basis with the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Stone (Mr Cash), as there are examples of regulations that are a burden to business. A business in my constituency, Premiere Products, has pointed to the impact of the biocidal products regulation—a brand new regulation that should have been there to facilitate access to markets across Europe for small and medium-sized enterprises, increase competition and reduce authorisation costs, but seems likely to do the exact opposite. I say to Ministers that the biocidal products regulation is a prime candidate for inclusion in REFIT, as we must consider whether we can do more to lighten the burden of regulation, especially on small businesses.

The Commission’s programme is a fascinating and important one. The modest motion before us asks only that we take note of the document and regard it as “a useful tool” for looking at that programme, so I am happy to support it.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his succinctness.

18:39

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I had better make this my application to appear on “Just a Minute”, which is one of my remaining ambitions, Mr Speaker.

We have heard in this debate, over 90 minutes, the whole programme of the European Union for a year. I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for once. We spend four days on the Queen’s speech. We have 90 minutes on this. What do we have in it? We have a directive on network and information security, to which the Government are opposed, but on which they can be outvoted; a regulation on data protection, ditto; a regulation establishing a public prosecutor, ditto; a directive establishing a financial transaction tax, ditto; a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, just at the time when people are realising that they want cheap energy, not more environmental regulation. We have, fantastically, regulations on European political parties coming through from the European Union, so perhaps they will limit what we can say in future and will not give us any money for it, because the European Union is taking charge. We have, just as the wonderful Romanians and Bulgarians have come in to free movement, a labour mobility package, to which even the Government are opposed, because they do not believe the scope of EU rules should be extended to cover long-term care, they are worried about unemployment benefits, etc., etc.

It is all going our way. It is absolutely amazing. I am so pleased. I speak as one of those dumb oxes who put his hoofprint on a letter to the Prime Minister. The letter went in and those very clever people in the Foreign Office did not like it, because they said it was going their way; they are pleased to tell us that hairdressers will be allowed to wear high heels when cutting our hair. There is rejoicing in all the barber shops across London at this news being relayed to us. They have given away so much. They lose so much, yet it is going their way only in their own minds. We are seeing in this programme 37 new laws that are coming into effect over the course of this year. We are in the process of a federal state being created. We ought to oppose it. If we oppose it rigorously, things really will go our way, and the dumb oxes will finally have their success.

Question put.

18:42

Division 190

Ayes: 330

---

Conservative: 221
Labour: 61
Liberal Democrat: 42
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Scottish National Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1

Noes: 20

---

Conservative: 14
Labour: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 2

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15521/13 and Addendum, a Commission Communication: Commission Work Programme 2014; agrees that this document is a useful tool for planning the Government’s and Parliament’s engagement with the EU in 2014; and supports the Government’s view that measures which promote growth and jobs in the EU, including measures towards completing the Single Market, are the top priority.

Convoys Wharf, Deptford

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

18:54

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate. My purpose in calling it is to share with the House one of London’s best kept secrets and one of its greatest opportunities.

Fifteen years ago, representatives of News International contacted me to announce the closure of Convoys Wharf. I met them on site, going down a narrow street in Deptford through an industrial gate set in high fences. I came upon a huge area of concrete peppered with massive sheds stretching to the waterfront. It was a vast, forlorn, windy expanse with a footprint similar to the whole of the south bank. My immediate fear was that the site was destined for millionaires’ housing, a gated community cut off from the rest of Deptford that would continue the hundreds of years of local people’s exclusion from their own Thames waterfront. Then I discovered that Convoys Wharf was the site of Henry VIII’s naval shipyard and the home of the great diarist John Evelyn. I sensed that this would be an historic battle, and so it has been, as I, with local people and Lewisham council planners led by John Miller, have sought recognition of the site’s supreme importance and of the imperative to secure a development appropriate to its unique heritage.

Let me outline the historical record, which I have taken—often verbatim—from the Museum of London archaeology report. The record goes back to the Domesday Book and the manor of Grenviz, the present-day Deptford. In the late 12th century, the manor passed to the de Says family, who named it Sayes court. The mediaeval manor house of Sayes court, which was constructed of wood, was certainly in existence in 1405.

Deptford increasingly felt the influence of Greenwich palace. It was given a great boost when Henry VIII decided to found a royal dockyard there. Lambarde wrote of Deptford:

“This towne was of none estimation at all until King Henrie the eighth advised (for the better preservation of the Royal fleete) to erect a storehouse, and to create certaine officers there”.

This Tudor storehouse was the nucleus of the shipyard. Erected in 1513, it survived in part until 1952. The great dock was probably built at this time, and the old pond at Deptford strand was adapted as a basin to accommodate ships in 1517. In 1581, Sir Francis Drake’s ship the Golden Hind was lodged in a specially constructed brick dock, becoming one of London’s very first tourist attractions. For 400 years, Deptford was the powerhouse of England’s navy. Local boat builder Julian Kingston has recorded:

“Hundreds of warships and countless trading vessels were built or refitted here including ships for exploration, science and empire. It was the ‘Cape Canaveral’ of its day and is associated with the great mariners of the time, such as Drake, Rayleigh and Cook”.

In 1653, John Evelyn took up residence in Sayes court. He modernised the house and laid out its vast gardens. He began with an orchard of 300 mixed fruit trees, and went on to create groves of elm and of walnut trees, a huge holly hedge, plots for melons, pears and beans, as well as a moated island for raspberries and asparagus, beehives and a carp pond. It was here that Evelyn carried out his planting trials, which formed the basis of his famous treatise “Sylva, or A Discourse of Forest-Trees”.

That other illustrious diarist Samuel Pepys recorded two visits to John Evelyn’s gardens in 1665. He saw

“a hive of bees, so as being hived in glass you may see the bees making their honey and combs mighty pleasantly”,

and Evelyn

“showed me his gardens, which are for variety of evergreens, and hedge of holly, the finest things I ever saw in my life.”

Samuel Pepys had major business at the dockyard, having been put in charge of Charles II’s great “thirty shipbuilding programme” in 1677. The Lenox, to which I will refer later, was the first of the ships to be built. In 1708, Master Shipwright Joseph Allin built a house on the site, and it remains intact today. It was bought in 1998 by William Richards and Chris Mazeika who are continuously restoring it. As shipbuilding developed, the slipways became vast structures of brick, concrete and timber and were then provided with cover buildings, an example of which is the Olympia.

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

The Olympia was constructed from 1844 to 1846 and remains on site today.

Let me return to Sayes court. When John Evelyn moved out in 1694, it was rented to, among others, Tsar Peter the Great, who came to Deptford to study shipbuilding. He is reported to have trashed the house and garden during his wild parties. Specifically, he drove a wheelbarrow through the famous hedge. Sayes court changed ownership a number of times and became absorbed into the dockyard expansion of 1830.

In 1869, William John Evelyn, who was a descendant of the original John Evelyn, bought back part of the site. His attempts to preserve the park and museum for the public led him to contact Octavia Hill. Realising that there was no existing legal form that could secure such protection, Hill set about establishing the organisation that was to become the National Trust. Seventeen years later, the gardens were given to the public, only to face their final demise in 1914, when they were leased as a horse transport reserve depot. The gardens were built over and the house was used by the War Office. The last elements of Sayes court manor house were demolished at some time around 1930. It was the Ministry of Defence that eventually sold the site now known as Convoys Wharf to News International in 1979.

In 1952 a debate ensued over the demolition of the Tudor storehouse. It was not listed, despite the existence of a Tudor arch that was 10 feet high and 6 feet wide and a foundation stone bearing the inscription,

“Henricus Rex annus Christi 1513”.

Twenty thousand Tudor bricks were disposed of—some, we believe, to help rebuild the buildings at Hampton Court—and the arch and stone were given to University college London, where they are housed today in the computing department. After a successful campaign by the community group, “Deptford Is”, UCL has agreed to return the artefacts. The campaign has now turned its attention to the clock that was part of the 18th-century storehouse, which currently resides in the car park of the Thamesmead shopping centre.

That is the extraordinary history of Convoys Wharf, which is now the subject of an outline planning application that has been handed to the Greater London authority by the current owners, Hutchison Whampoa. Over the past 13 years, we have struggled to persuade the various developers, architects and master planners to understand the huge responsibility that they have to honour the site’s heritage. Sadly, we have not been helped by the lack of interest from English Heritage.

In 1999, Alan Howarth conducted a ministerial review of royal dockyards to upgrade listing and scheduling. Deptford dockyard was omitted because it was believed at the time that the only structures of value were the Olympia and the Master Shipwright’s house. An application was submitted locally in 2002, which resulted in the scheduling of the undercroft of the 1513 Tudor storehouse a year later. In 2009, another application was submitted by local people to list the docks, slips, basin and mast ponds. English Heritage recommended not to list. There were many errors in the report and the decision was contested. English Heritage withdrew its recommendation. The Council for British Archaeology and the Naval Dockyards Society, supported by local historians, requested that the case be reopened in 2012. Again English Heritage recommended not to list. The Council for British Archaeology then initiated a freedom of information inquiry, which revealed errors and obfuscation resulting in further exchanges. Last year English Heritage recommended the statutory protection of the dockyard wharf wall and the upgrading of the Master Shipwright’s house. Many features remain without protection and await consideration of the final archaeological survey. I am, however, pleased to report that relations with English Heritage have much improved.

Given the GLA’s wish to determine next month, will the Minister activate an emergency listing and scheduling procedure based on the available archaeology? That would ensure that Hutchinson Whampoa and the GLA proceeded with the full knowledge of the heritage protections on the site and how they should influence design and construction decisions. That brings me to the most exciting part of this 21st-century saga. As developers’ plans have come forward, so too have local aspirations. We want to create a destination that both honours the past and creates a vision of the future that embraces the vibrant and dynamic community that is Deptford. Two projects would fulfil that ambition and demand incorporation at this stage of the planning process.

The Sayes court garden project, developed by Roo Angell and Bob Bagley and their architect David Kohn, seeks to create a new garden and a centre for urban horticulture. In their own words:

“The remarkable history of Sayes Court is filled with bold ideas which understood that contact with nature is an essential part of healthy urban life. Sayes Court Garden is a project inspired by this history of innovation. Combining stimulating design with a programme which brings together all stages of education, from primary schools and practical training to the latest research, Sayes Court is a garden for the 21st century.”

A comprehensive archaeological survey has revealed the traces of early walls found below an 18th-century building on the site of Sayes court, and nearby garden walls have been confidently reconciled with map evidence of Evelyn’s home. Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the value of these remains and plans to make them viewable. It has also embraced the Sayes court garden project, but in its plan the new buildings will obliterate much of the original garden site and isolate the proposed centre. English Heritage shares our view that the centre for urban horticulture should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. Does the Minister support this view?

The second project, led by Julian Kingston, proposes to build a replica of the great 17th-century wooden ship, the Lenox. The Lenox would be built using modern techniques and enable apprentices to be trained in modern transferable skills. The project also intends to encompass research and training in heritage crafts. Once again, Hutchison Whampoa has recognised the groundswell of support for the Lenox project, but failed to place it appropriately in its plans.

The massive grade II listed Olympia building, which is 75 metres by 62 metres and 17 metres high, sits at the heart of Convoys Wharf and covers the recently excavated slips on which 19th-century ships were built. Internally, the building boasts wrought iron tied-arch roofs, two of the only seven remaining structures to survive nationally. It is the perfect location for the Lenox project and a host of supporting cultural activities.

In front of the Olympia building is the site of the great basin. Restored or rebuilt, this would provide a means of launching a completed replica ship into the Thames and could replace the water body that the owners currently plan to site elsewhere. Will the Minister confirm that English Heritage has no objection to these plans for the Olympia building and great basin? Will he also acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets will necessitate changes to the master plan?

Finally, let me try to describe the overall development. Yes, it will provide hundreds of luxury waterfront dwellings in very high towers to which many have objections, and many issues will have to be debated and determined at later stages of the planning application about the massing and transport, but the site could also offer an amazing place for locals, new residents and visitors alike. The development would be approached through the extensive Sayes court garden, leading to the horticultural centre and the Olympia building with its myriad activities, and on to the water basin leading to the Thames. It would be a place of which everyone in Deptford could be proud, a place that would sit alongside the world heritage sites that are Greenwich, the Cutty Sark and the National Maritime Museum, a place offering green lungs and riverside walks in the heart of the inner city, a place giving new hope to young people of training and jobs and to enterprising local artists and entrepreneurs. It would be not just for the people of Deptford and Lewisham, but for London and those way beyond this great city. Once again, Deptford and its dockyards could become a jewel in London’s crown.

19:12

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), whom I congratulate on calling this important debate. I have listened with interest to her remarks on the historic importance of Convoys Wharf, and I certainly echo everything she said.

Convoys Wharf has been one of London’s best-kept secrets. I am not sure how far I should go in revealing my ignorance, but I am pleased that I am now in the position, thanks to her, of being full apprised of this heritage jewel sitting at the heart of our great capital city. At a time when London is once again one of the pre-eminent cities in the world, it is worth our recalling that one of the reasons it is so successful is its rich history and heritage. It says in my brief that Convoys Wharf is of historic interest—well, that has to be the understatement of the century. It is incredibly important. Henry VIII founded his dockyard there, Elizabeth I knighted Francis Drake there and John Evelyn’s house is there—Mr Speaker, you and I will recall the importance that John Evelyn played in our university life, as the diarist of the Cherwell newspaper.

The Master Shipwright’s house and the former dockyard office buildings are grade II* listed, which means that they are more than of special interest, and the Olympia building is grade II listed. We have scheduled as an ancient monument the remains of the Tudor naval storehouse, and more recently, in November, I was privileged to have the opportunity to list the dockyard river wall. And of course there might be further archaeological interest on the site, which is why English Heritage, my statutory adviser on the historic environment, is considering an interim archaeological report to see if anything substantial remains of the original Tudor dockyard.

On a wider point, it is important to say that heritage sits at the heart of many regeneration schemes. The most recent success is King’s Cross station and St Pancras, which is a great example of a Victorian station brought back to life. I was amazed and heartened to hear the other day that the French transport Minister had described St Pancras as the most beautiful railway station in Europe. It is important to put that on the record in the British Parliament.

Focusing on heritage is, as the right hon. Lady points out, not only important for our history—I am passionate, as she is, about heritage—but creates significant benefits for local economies and communities. It breathes new life into areas; it is essential to the economic and social revival of our towns and cities.

I was talking specifically about Convoys Wharf and I mentioned the archaeological report that English Heritage is carrying out for me. In a sense, that answers the first question put to me. The right hon. Lady asked whether I would activate an emergency listing or scheduling procedure. I expect English Heritage to report very soon on whether other parts of the site should be scheduled. I can give her an undertaking this evening that I will consider the report the minute it arrives, and take a decision based on its recommendations in short order.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his remarks so far. I was told, however, that the report and relevant information and advice would not be finalised until the end of this year. That was, of course, a great concern because we are in a period in which the outline planning application could be determined as quickly as next month.

[Mr Vaizey]

That is interesting. I was unaware that the right hon. Lady had been told that. My understanding is that I can expect to receive the report in February. If that is wrong, I will write to the right hon. Lady, but judging from certain nods I am being given, I am pretty certain that that is the case. I will let the right hon. Lady know as soon as possible if that is incorrect.

Having set out the importance of heritage, it is also obviously important that London has redevelopment. Convoys Wharf is the largest redevelopment area in inner London. I cannot really comment on the specific proposals, particularly when I might be asked to consider further elements of the site for scheduling or listing. Echoing what the right hon. Lady said, I can say that English Heritage has been involved in discussions about the site for more than 10 years and is now fully engaged in the process. It has identified potential heritage significance and it will, in its statutory planning role, provide expert advice to the authorities on aspects of the proposals.

It is important to remember that, in preparing development plans and determining requests for planning permission, planning authorities, including the Mayor, need to have regard to the national planning policy framework, including its policies on conserving and enhancing the historic environment. Those policies look to control potentially harmful changes, seeking instead to deliver positive improvements in quality. The NPPF promotes quality in our built environment and balances conservation of the best of our past with support for innovative new design. With that in mind, schedule areas and listed buildings can be given the adequate protection they deserve from both the developer and planners. It is worth pointing out that listing does not amount to a preservation order. The listed building consent regime is built on the philosophy that the best way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings is to keep them in active use.

That brings me back to the proposals that the right hon. Lady has told us about today. Let me comment on some of the specific questions she put to me. She asked about the centre for urban horticulture and whether it should respond to the archaeology and be set within an open space. My understanding is that English Heritage considers that the proposed orientation of the blocks does not best reflect the archaeology in respect of the relationship of Sayes court to its garden landscape. It believes that the remains of Sayes court and its garden landscape would be better reflected by making the relationship more legible. The concept of a centre for urban horticulture, incorporating and presenting the remains of Sayes court, is a potentially attractive one—one that better reflects the historic relationship. I believe it is important to note the views of English Heritage in that regard.

The right hon. Lady talked about the exciting Lenox proposal to rebuild one of Charles II’s ships within the Olympia—according to its plans, but obviously not to rebuild it with the original material—and to restore or rebuild the great basin in front of it. Because it has not seen the plans for the scheme, English Heritage cannot comment on it specifically. Obviously, if the scheme is viable and it is possible to secure a long-term reuse of the listed building, and if the impact on the archaeology and the historic fabric is likely to be minimal, English Heritage could, in principle, support it, but I understand that the developer thinks that it would be impossible to rebuild the basin without destroying the archaeology.

The right hon. Lady asked me whether I would acknowledge that the experts believe that proper consideration of the heritage assets should lead to changes in the master plan. I fear that, technically, I must duck that question, as it is clearly for the developers to take into account any listings and scheduling.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

There is an issue about whether the basin might be renovated, or whether a new basin might be built within it. There is confusion over whether English Heritage thinks one thing or the other, but we understand that it would be able to approve some treatment of the basin that would not be harmful in any way and would meet our purposes. I wonder whether I might invite the Minister to examine that issue further, and then write to me.

[Mr Vaizey]

I will certainly seek clarification from English Heritage in regard to its understanding of what is proposed and of what may be possible, and also in regard to its attitude in principle. However, the overriding principle, which I think we all understand, is that the archaeology must not be damaged in any way.

I recognise the commitment that the right hon. Lady has shown to this project over many years in order to ensure that the architectural heritage was preserved and that we could work towards a better solution. I should also acknowledge the work of the volunteers and members of the local community who have brought their imagination and passion to bear in supporting the project. We should bear it in mind that they are supporting it not just for the benefit of their own community, but for the benefit for the whole of London and the whole nation.

Finally, let me put myself at the right hon. Lady’s disposal. If she needs me to convene a meeting with the developers, with the Greater London Association, or with anyone else whose views she believes are relevant, I stand ready to assist her in any way that she considers suitable.

Question put and agreed to.

19:22

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Commons Chamber

Division 186

Ayes: 304

---

Conservative: 262
Liberal Democrat: 38
Independent: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 231

---

Labour: 217
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 22 January 2014

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Bangladesh

The following is an extract from the response by the Minister for Europe, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), to the Backbench Business debate on Bangladesh on 16 January 2014.

[Mr Lidington]

Most United Kingdom aid is channelled through non-governmental organisations and none is paid directly to the Bangladesh Government. It is true that about a third of our total aid programme ultimately goes to the Bangladesh Government’s health and education systems because, as we all know, help with primary health care and education are key to promoting the economic development and sustainable growth of a developing country. However, that one-third share is channelled via reputable NGOs, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and money is paid out by our Government only once we have been given clear, accountable evidence that a project or programme in the education or health sector has been delivered. That aspect of our aid is delivered on a reimbursement basis.

[Official Report, 16 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 1054.]

Letter of correction from David Lidington:

An error has been identified in the response given on 16 January 2014. The correct response should have been:

[Mr Lidington]

Most United Kingdom aid is channelled through non-governmental organisations and that which is paid to the Government of Bangladesh is done so on a reimbursement basis. It is true that about a third of our total aid programme ultimately goes to the Bangladesh Government’s health and education systems because, as we all know, help with primary health care and education are key to promoting the economic development and sustainable growth of a developing country. However, that one-third share is channelled via reputable NGOs, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and money is paid out by our Government only once we have been given clear, accountable evidence that a project or programme in the education or health sector has been delivered. That aspect of our aid is delivered on a reimbursement basis.

Petition

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Petitions

Wednesday 22 January 2014

Planning Applications for Solar PV Farms on Greenfield Land (Braintree, Essex)

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Petitions

The Petition of residents of Foxearth and Liston, Belchamp Saint Pauls and Belchamp Otten, and Pentlow Parishes, Essex,

Declares that the Petitioners object to the siting of Solar PV farms because they will exceed the 50 megawatt limitation as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 thus requiring consideration by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; further that these sites involve Grade II agricultural land which is within the top 21% of agricultural land in the country and protected as such under the National Planning Policy Framework; further that the Department of Communities and Local Government issued in July 2013 planning guidance which referred to the requirements to consider technology and potential impacts on the local environment; further that there is an absence of locational need and a site search has not been fully carried out; further that the impact of the developments will be extensive and will include a two-metre security fence on Greenfield land with significant consequences on the surrounding countryside; further that on two of the proposed sites a Grade I listed church and several Grade II listed houses will be overlooked; and further that the proposals are intended to last for 25 years but during that time they will effectively preclude agricultural use and will degrade the land and will impact upon the sites and surrounding areas.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Energy and Climate Change to refuse all planning applications to build on sites where Solar PV farms will be developed.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Mr Brooks Newmark, Official Report, 12 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 926.]

[P001290]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is aware that a planning application has been submitted to Braintree District Council for a solar farm at Big Deere Lodge, Belchamp St Paul. He also understands that requests for screening opinions on the need for environmental impact assessment have been submitted for solar farm proposals on Land South of Buntings Farm, Pentlow and Land at Shearing Place Farm, Belchamp St Paul but no formal planning applications have been submitted. The Secretary of State is unable to comment on specific proposals.

Particular concerns have been raised because there are a number of proposals relating to solar farms within the local area, which have a combined capacity, if considered collectively, that would meet the threshold where the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change would determine proposals under the regime for nationally significant infrastructure (the Planning Act 2008). An application for a solar energy development must be considered under the Planning Act 2008 where the capacity of the proposed station would exceed 50 megawatts. However, at present, only one planning application has been made and this does not exceed this threshold.

Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, local planning authorities have the statutory responsibility for considering planning applications for renewable energy developments of 50 megawatts or less. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the statutory development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. These material considerations include national planning policy. Local authorities will also take into account relevant representations from the local community on the planning merits of the proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework includes strong protections for the natural environment and requires local councils to take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. The Framework is clear that local planning authorities should design their policies to ensure that wherever they are located, the adverse impact of renewable energy developments are addressed satisfactorily. Planning applications for renewable energy should only be approved if the impact is, or can be made, acceptable. National policy statements form part of the overall framework of national planning policy, and are a material consideration in decisions on planning applications.

New planning practice guidance was published in July to help ensure planning decisions reflect the environmental balance in the Framework. The guidance is very clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. In relation to large scale solar farms, the guidance sets out a number of factors a local planning authority will need to consider, in particular, encouraging the effective use of previously developed land, that it allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays. In relation to heritage assets that guidance clearly states that great care should be taken to ensure heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, including the impact of the proposals on views important to their setting.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 22 January 2014

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Money Transfer Accounts and Remittance Sector

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Claire Perry.)

09:30

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Bore da, Mr Owen. For those who do not speak the language of heaven, that means good morning.

I am grateful for the opportunity to probe the Government on their steps to support money transfer accounts and the remittance sector. According to a recent blog from the Africa Research Institute, the Secretary of State for International Development has described this issue as

“one of the most important things I have dealt with in my political career”,

so is at least as important as HS2, and therefore the Government should devote at least as much effort to, and invest at least as much political capital in, trying to sort it out. At a recent meeting at Ealing town hall, she assured UK Somalis that the

“best experts on the planet are working on a solution”

and that the Prime Minister has recognised that a rapid solution is needed to a problem that he has described as “massively important”. I hope that the Minister will update us on the Government’s steps so far, clarify their position, answer frankly any questions from hon. Members and tell us about the action that will be taken to provide a rapid solution to what the Prime Minister has described as a “massively important” problem.

The problem came to a head in May 2013 when Barclays announced that it intended to close the accounts of most of its clients in the money transfer and remittance business. The decision was delayed, probably due in part to a debate in Westminster Hall in July 2013, which was ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). She is in the Chamber today, and she has led a brilliant campaign on the matter, supported by other hon. Members in the room.

Although the decision on the closure of accounts was delayed, unfortunately that was of little use to the constituent I mentioned in the 2013 debate, Mr Anwar Ali, whose business, Trust Exchange UK Ltd, was ruined by Barclays’s decision. As I said during that debate, that business was a model of the sort of small businesses that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see in their constituencies. It not only offered a service to constituents who needed to transfer money to relatives overseas, but engaged in such things as charitable work and aid projects, especially in Bangladesh.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Sheffield is fortunate in having one of the largest Somali communities outside London. That community has made strong representations to me about the issue. The specific point is that an inability to transfer money causes not just domestic and individual family distress. A survey of diaspora communities in Sheffield that I carried out showed the important contribution that remittance giving makes in supplementing aid, so the issue also involves international development. Does he agree that that makes it much more important that the Government take action?

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge everything he said, including the Somali community in Sheffield. His intervention also allows me to remind the Chamber that Cardiff—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is also in the room—has one of the oldest Somali communities in Britain, going back to the 19th century. The community plays a hugely important and positive role in the life of our great city. What my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said was right, and I shall say more about aid later.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I apologise that I will have to leave for a few minutes in the middle of it. Does he agree that for the Ogaden Somalis—around 500 are resident in my community—the ability to remit money back to families at home is particularly important because so many of them are suffering displacement and persecution? There is a particularly strong link with not only our moral but our economic responsibilities to those communities.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that that was why the International Development Secretary acknowledged, at least in words, the importance of the matter. Today we are seeking to poke the Government into quicker action than we have seen so far.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

In my constituency I have a large Somali community whose members send remittances to different parts of the world, as do other people. I want to supplement what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) said. Remittances do not just add to international development assistance because, globally, they are of greater value. If we cut them off, we will do serious damage to a number of countries and some of the poorest people in the world.

[Kevin Brennan]

If I keep taking interventions, I fear that my comments will become less fresh and novel to listeners because my hon. Friends, with their expertise on this matter, are anticipating many of my points. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for what he said.

Sadly, following the withdrawal of banking services by Barclays, my constituent, Mr Anwar Ali, had to run down his business severely, and I understand that if he is unable to find a solution to this banking problem, the business may have to close. It is one thing for large banks to refuse to lend to small businesses—we all know about that—but it is another to deny to legitimate, law-abiding small businesses the basic service of a bank account. The banks casually say that they are making a commercial decision, but to small businesses it is a commercial death sentence. Let me remind hon. Members of the importance of such remittances, especially to developing countries.

According to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report in 2012, in 48 of the least developed countries, remittance receipts climbed from £3.5 billion in 1990 to more than £27 billion in 2011—that figure might be much higher. In Somalia alone, the authorities said in 2012 that around one third of the country’s GDP—$2 billion—came through small money transfer agencies, and that 40% of people in Somalia depended on remittance flows.

A major multinational bank, which in recent years was heavily fined for wrongdoing, is operating in a market dominated by a small number of players of its kind and has withdrawn, mainly from small businesses, a service vital to their existence and crucial to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is difficult to get to the bottom of exactly why that has happened, because it has not made its reasons clear. Are they commercial reasons, as it blithely says, or are they fears about terrorism and money laundering? There is a lack of clarity about the reasons.

Anthony Jenkins, the chief executive officer of Barclays, said that it was stopping offering bank services to such business because they

“don't have the proper checks in place to spot criminal activity and could unwittingly be facilitating money laundering and finance terrorism”.

In a letter to Dahabshiil, which is one of the larger payment firms and is located, I believe, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, Barclays said that the decision was

“not a negative reflection of your anti-money laundering standards, nor a belief that your business has unwittingly been a conduit for financial crime. It is, however, a commercial decision that we have taken due to the risks of the sector”.

Perhaps the Minister can explain—I know he talks to these big banks—what he thinks is behind the fact that every single major UK bank refuses to provide banking services to the sector, effectively financially excluding the firms, without considering each of them on its merits. Does he believe that that is purely commercial coincidence, or is it—[Interruption.] I wonder whether those in the civil service Box would stop talking while I am addressing the Chamber.

Does the Minister believe that that situation is a commercial coincidence, or is it another aspect of the overall lack of competition in the banking sector that the Government are failing to address? What can he tell us about the role of the National Crime Agency in this matter? In effect, the uncompetitive major banks have erected a complete barrier to the financial sector for some of its smallest members. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?

Dahabshiil was able to win an injunction against Barclays in the courts in October, so its account remains open for the time being, at least. Unfortunately, however, many other firms, including the one in my constituency, have not benefited from the development, because their accounts have already been closed by Barclays. Does the Minister believe that Barclays should offer to reopen the accounts that it closed before the court’s decision so that the account holders are able to carry on their business until the case is finally settled? Does he agree that that would be an entirely reasonable thing to do? It would allow businesses such as the one in my constituency to get on with the business that they were doing perfectly legitimately and legally beforehand so that money transfers could take place. Will he call on Barclays to reopen those accounts until the court decision is made? I understand that so far Barclays has refused to reopen those accounts, so I hope that the Minister will condemn that.

I pointed out in the 2013 debate that there seems to be a different set of rules for large banks and financial institutions, such as Barclays and Western Union, which stand to benefit from the situation. It has been proved that Western Union helped to facilitate money laundering in Mexico—it paid a fine to the Arizona state authorities in relation to that—yet it stands to inherit a lot of the business of small firms against which nothing has been proved. In recent years, almost all the large banks and institutions have been found guilty, in one way or another, of financial misdemeanours, and they have sometimes been fined—[Interruption.] I wonder whether I could ask you, Mr Owen, to appeal that those in the civil service Box do not interrupt the debate.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a very interesting contribution. Everybody is very quiet, so any noise that is heard is magnified. I ask that everyone in the room is courteous to the Member who is speaking.

[Kevin Brennan]

It is unfortunate that sound carries, Mr Owen, but it is distracting, so I am grateful for your assistance.

Those large banks and institutions not only have been fined, but have been bailed out by ordinary taxpayers to the tune of billions of pounds to stop them failing as a result of their greed. Their reward for that malfeasance has been a handout from Governments, yet these small businesses, against which much has been insinuated but nothing actually proved, have been squashed by the big banks’ refusal to allow them the facilities that they need to survive, effectively denying them the air that they need to breathe as businesses. That is an intolerable abuse, so the Government should be acting with the utmost urgency to fix it.

So far the Government have taken some steps, especially in relation to Somalia. In September they announced an action group on cross-border remittances, before announcing its terms of reference in December. However, four months after the action group was set up, why—to my knowledge, unless the Minister is going to make an announcement today—has no chair of the group been appointed and why have no meetings taken place? I understand that, as a direct result of today’s debate, a date has finally been set for the group’s first meeting, but the record so far smacks more of inaction than action. Will he tell us today who is to chair the group, and will he confirm when it will meet? We all recognise the danger of terrorism, but why has there not been more focus on helping such remittance businesses to avoid risks, rather than shutting them down when there is no evidence of wrongdoing?

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When the Secretary of State for International Development announced the setting up of the action group on cross-border remittances, she said, in reply to a written question from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), that part of its purpose would be to develop

“a safe corridor pilot to ensure the continued flow of remittances to Somalia through secure, legitimate and accessible channels.”—[Official Report, 27 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 342W.]

The working group was given a one-year timetable. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) agree that it is not unreasonable for the House to expect a complete solution to the problem and that Her Majesty’s Government should have found a way of ensuring that remittances from UK citizens can get to developing countries within, at the very latest, the one-year timetable set out by the Secretary of State?

[Kevin Brennan]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is important that we get on with it. My point is that, four months after the announcement that the action group would be set up, it has not yet met, and as far as I am aware we do not know who will chair it, unless the Minister can give us more information in his speech.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to reflect the concern on both sides of the House about the lack of urgency on the matter. We expected a great deal more progress than has been achieved so far. The sense of urgency comes from our constituents whose families are dependent on remittances. In some instances, it literally is about people’s security as a family in the long term.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need firmer information from the Minister about when he expects that progress will be made, so we look forward to his speech.

For example, will the Minister guarantee that the action group will meet the target date—the deadline—of April 2014 to formulate new official guidance for money services businesses and banks, especially on agreeing how to deal with money laundering and terrorism risks? Does he anticipate that that will make it easier for banks to start providing bank accounts again? Is it his intention that that should happen by April, May, June, the summer, or within the one-year deadline? What estimate has he made of how many money transfer companies have been forced out of business so far, and how many will be forced out of business in the meantime due to the lack of a bank account?

I have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow for her leadership on the issue, even though that has not, unfortunately, been able to save the business in my constituency. The Government must get on with finding the solution to the problem. If they do not, many decent, law-abiding small businesses, which are often located in the poorer parts of our country, will be forced out of business by the indifference of the authorities to the actions of the big banks, meaning that the livelihoods and well-being of some of the world’s poorest people in developing countries will be placed in hazard.

09:49

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate and because a long-standing constituency commitment will prevent me from being here for the end. I shall therefore make a very brief contribution.

First, I hope that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that there are international discussions, because this is not a problem just for Britain and for Barclays. Secondly, we must accept that people will get remittances to their families one way or another. The real question is whether the cost is excessive and whether there is an audit trail. Nearly everything that goes outside the ordinary banking system has a much higher cost and no audit trail. I hope that the Minister will be able to talk today, or will ensure that we hear soon, about an internationally acceptable way in which remittances can be passed to people’s families in their home countries at a reasonable cost and with some kind of audit trail.

09:50

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing the debate and for working with me and other colleagues on this very important subject and the Save Remittance Giving campaign, which had the support of 47 Labour MPs and, later, MPs from other parties. Notably, it has also had the support of nearly 130,000 members of the public. The campaign has been led particularly by the Somali community, but there are others involved, including communities throughout the country who have a direct interest in remittance giving; many non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam; and constituents whose origins are not in developing countries but who understand how important it is that we support remittance giving.

Remittance giving plays a vital role in reinforcing and complementing our international aid efforts to developing countries such as Somalia, and particularly areas such as Somaliland, which provide a beacon of hope for that country, showing how remittances, along with development aid and a transition to peace and stability, are vital. If we need an example of a country that could make great strides through remittance contributions, that is the country to look at. I will focus on Somaliland and Somalia today, because of the unique situation that there is no banking system in that country.

There are many parallels. The Syria conference starts today, and when we debate how countries can move towards a peace settlement, the question of countries in conflict or coming out of conflict without banking systems becomes ever more important. Somalia and Somaliland are an example of the importance of banking and remittance that, if we can find a solution to the current problem, will pave the way for other countries coming out of conflict that do not have banking systems. In such circumstances, people need to be able to remit legally—through legitimate means—in a proper banking process.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I think the whole House supports the work that the hon. Lady and others have been doing in campaigning on remittances. She is perfectly right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Somaliland and Somalia have no banking system—in Hargeisa, one sees people literally pushing wheelbarrows around with Somali shillings. Does she agree that one thing that the Department for International Development and all of us should be trying to do is help both Somalia and Somaliland to develop a genuine banking system? There needs to be a clearing banking system in both Mogadishu and Hargeisa if those countries are to have any sustainable development.

[Rushanara Ali]

I could not agree more. There is a very important question for the Minister about the role that our finance Ministry, working with international Finance Ministers and with our International Development Secretary, can play in taking the lead on supporting countries that are making the transition, so that they can have an effective banking system. That has to happen simultaneously with efforts to find a solution on the issue of remittance. It is critical if we want to ensure that our security and our interests are also served.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has referred several times to finding a solution. Does she agree with me and with an Oxfam spokesman who has said that what is really required is a long-term, sustainable fix to ensure that this problem does not occur?

[Rushanara Ali]

Yes, of course we need a long-term solution as well as an interim solution. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West set out brilliantly the background—how we got here. Barclays made its decision, following on from decisions that other banks had made, which has led to virtually no opportunities for money transfer companies to use banking facilities to carry out their business, and as a result, many have gone out of business. At this rate, there will not be many left if we do not get our act together and find an interim solution, as well as a long-term solution that involves coming up with an international framework.

Britain has led on these issues in the past and I believe that it can do so again. That is my appeal today to the Minister—that he will work with the Secretary of State for International Development and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and put genuine effort in during the short window of time that we have managed to gain, thanks to the injunction achieved by the company based in my constituency, Dahabshiil, led by Mr Abdirashid Duale. As a result of that, although other companies have closed, it is still going. It is virtually the last one standing, but it is also the biggest company that supports remittance to developing countries.

We have until October, and if a solution—an interim solution as well as a long-term one—is not found, we may see devastation in Somalia, because there are almost no other routes to get money in apart from physically carrying cash, which I am sure no one wants people to be doing, because of the dangers of criminality, terrorism, extremism and many other things. We cannot have a situation in which people must physically transport cash and place themselves at risk of being criminalised, not to mention being the target of criminals, as they try to get money to their communities because of the desperate situation.

Let me remind hon. Members of the context particularly of Somalia, but also of many other countries—we have seen this in Pakistan, Bangladesh and many other countries. At times of crisis, people need to get money into remote places, so even countries with a banking system struggle to enable people to get support—to get remittances—in. That is where money transfer companies play a vital role. They have intimate—close—networks and trusted relationships in remote villages around the world, whereby people can get money to those who cannot travel easily because the infrastructure is not good enough in those countries or because they live in remote places.

Money transfer companies are also vital in times of disaster, as we saw during the humanitarian disaster in east Africa, which affected Somalia, the floods in Pakistan and Bangladesh, the cyclones, and disasters in many other countries. We need to ensure that there are ways in which remittances can be given, so that the pressure on humanitarian assistance does not increase further, which undoubtedly it would do if remittances were prevented from getting to people quickly and safely. Global remittance flows are greater in value than all the international aid budgets put together. We need safe and legal—legitimate—mechanisms whereby people can get help to their families.

In the previous debate, the Minister himself said that his elderly family members had received remittances in the past and continued to do so. I have a similar experience, because my family do the same. It is a critical way in which people support each other. The British Muslim community donate millions of pounds in zakat, which also takes the form of remittances. All those contributions build a vital lifeline for people in developing countries who might not qualify for development aid, but who none the less receive support for education, health care and other costs that enables them to live a decent life.

Remittances contribute greatly to economic development, as I have seen in my constituency, where communities have come together to raise money. I attended a recent event at which some 500 people from the British Somali community got together to raise money. It was organised by some of my constituents who are here today: Ayan Mahamoud, Abdi Rashid Gulaid and many others. They raised nearly £1 million in one evening by calling on the community to act to rebuild their country, to rebuild roads and to rebuild infrastructure.

That is a case in point of communities helping themselves to rebuild their country, rather than depending on aid. We have heard a lot from Ministers from the Department for International Development about the need for self-reliance. I passionately believe that that is what people want in their own countries, and the best way to encourage that is to build a system of remittance through which people can send money legitimately to help rebuild their countries and lift the inhabitants out of poverty. Such a system can work alongside the important international aid effort to which we contribute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West set out the background and described the inconsistencies inherent in the decision by Barclays. The Government must act to provide a medium-term and a long-term solution to this serious problem. The fact that 130,000 people got behind the campaign and tens of thousands more signed petitions—teenage Somali girls even went around markets and visited people’s houses to get them to sign up to the campaign—shows how much people believe this matters because it affects their lives. People talk about communities feeling disfranchised, but that is an example of a community that led the way because the bank’s decision affected their families and friends so directly.

If we can find a solution to support a country and a community that historically have felt let down by politics—international politics as well as our politics—we will show that we care passionately, as the Prime Minister has said, about countries such as Somalia and support their transition towards peace, stability and economic development. The best way to do that is by supporting legitimate ways to help people help themselves and their families through remittance.

The most urgent of the challenges we face is time. Thanks to the campaign, the support of Members from across the House and the engagement—with some pressure—of Ministers in the Treasury and the Department for International Development, we now have a framework. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the action group on cross-border remittances needs urgently to meet and identify a chair. I hope that the Minister will set out in detail what will happen. We have a window of opportunity that nobody would have believed possible last summer, thanks to the work of the campaign, MPs and the media, and not least the support of double Olympic champion Mo Farah. His foundation, which uses Dahabshiil, has been directly affected because it will find it difficult to send money back to Africa. He said:

“I just cannot see how cutting the remittance lifeline squares with British foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. It will undo all the good work the government has achieved in the region”.

I echo his comments.

The Government have done good work in championing the cause of Somalia and Somaliland, and the Opposition have supported that effort through the Somalia conference. Whether a solution to the problem is found in the coming months—both an interim solution, to ensure that people can continue to remit to countries such as Somalia and places such as Somaliland, and a long-term solution—will make a critical difference to whether Somalia can avoid further conflict and devastation.

I hope that the Minister will push for the action group to come up with a solution that addresses the decision made by Barclays and other banks. Such banks need to feel that the regulatory framework allows them to provide banking facilities to money transfer companies without fear of big fines. There must be consistency and transparency in the decisions made to remove banking facilities from certain companies. The Government must learn lessons from the past, and look at what was done in cases where concerns were raised about money laundering.

Most importantly, as several experts have highlighted, the decision not to provide legitimate banking facilities to money transfer companies will simply drive the whole industry underground. We will return to the bad old days of money flows going into countries without regulation and without their Governments knowing how much money is going in. Some of that money will absolutely end up in the wrong hands, which is dangerous for those countries and for our security. That issue must be confronted. We need a solution that addresses issues of security and counter-terrorism. The withdrawal of legitimate banking facilities will open the way for such forces and present bigger dangers for us, particularly in countries such as Somalia and the surrounding region where there are major concerns about extremism and terrorism.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady think that as part of the solution, more might be done to promote mobile money transfers? According to a survey by the Gates Foundation, the World Bank and Gallup, more than one in three adults already use mobile money in Somalia. Might that be an important part of the solution?

[Rushanara Ali]

There is no question but that mobile technology can help, and many have cited M-Pesa as a potential example. The reality is that such technology does not go far enough, however. Not everyone can afford a mobile phone. In countries where mobile phones are cheap and there are banking systems and proper infrastructure, it is much easier to create the possibility of mobile phone transfer, but Somalia is a long way from that and, in the short to medium term, such a solution would not be adequate. In the long term, it might be a complementary facility, and I know that the action group will want to look into that.

However, mobile transfer is no substitute, and anyone who thinks that it might be is, frankly, living on another planet. Somalia has no infrastructure, and it does not have the required banking system. There are major challenges to using mobile technology to get remittances into the country; if that were not true, we would not be having this debate.

[Kevin Brennan]

Further to that point, is my hon. Friend aware that the survey that made those claims about mobile technology was based on 1,000 people in Hargeisa? That is hardly representative of Somalia as a whole.

[Rushanara Ali]

My hon. Friend is right. The integrity of that survey has been questioned, particularly by the Somali community in Britain. The remitters felt that it did not address the seriousness of the issue and was a superficial exercise. Frankly, going only into Hargeisa is not good enough. The trusted networks that organisations such as Dahabshiil and other money transfer companies use to reach people in remote places are critical to support across the country. That is the major challenge that we must address.

Some in my constituency, and elsewhere, have pointed out that if they want to get remittance in without the proper facility, which has so far been provided by Barclays, they will have to do so via Kenya. Family members would have to leave and go to Kenya, or to Hargeisa. If they live at the other side of the country, they would have to travel many hundreds of miles to get there. It could cost hundreds of pounds to get somewhere to access the remittance.

Imagine doing such a thing even in our country, never mind in a country without roads, safety, electricity, air transport and the necessary support. Add in the cost and it makes it pointless to get the remittance that family members might be sending. Remittance amounts might be small, but they are significant in providing support. The cost of retrieving the money, however, is too high if there is no direct route via money transfer companies that can get to remote villages. If there is no proper facility, the cost of people travelling to the capital, or to another country, is too high. That is not a solution.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) wants to speak, so I will start to conclude. I also want to hear from the Minister, and would like him to have as much time as possible to highlight the work he is doing on the issue. I know that he is working with colleagues across Departments on a solution to the problem. I hope he will have some good news.

Where do we go from here? We need strong international leadership from the UK Government. We have done that historically, so there is no reason why our Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development cannot lead the way. I welcome the fact that the working group involves the World Bank. If it was not for the campaign, and the pressure from the community and Members from all parties, that might not have happened. I am grateful to the Minister for rising to the challenge and recognising the significance of the issue, as well as the potential benefit for the UK if we lead the way to a solution.

There are economic benefits for us. If we can build a remittance framework to support economic development in countries in Africa, we can do more trade with such places in future. We need to be ahead of the curve. Other countries, such as China or India, are represented in Africa, while our banks are pulling people out, including the diaspora communities with strong links that could do more for our trading relationships in Africa. Remittance is the first route in for our businesses. I have seen that in countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and many others. There are potentially huge economic benefits if we create the climate within which the diaspora and minority communities can remit, trade and pave the way for our companies to follow, as has been the case in other countries.

There are longer-term benefits for the Treasury, and not only in engaging with the issue directly, coming up with an international solution and paving the way for our international partners. There are also benefits because for any country coming out of conflict without a proper banking system, or with one that has been devastated by conflict, the risks of money laundering and the financing of terrorism will be reduced if the security dimension is addressed and there are proper facilities. That is why Governments must step up. Companies such as Barclays, HSBC and others have said that they will be fined. Companies will have their motives, reasons and deep concerns about being clobbered with a big fine by US regulators. I have sympathy for that, but at that point the Government and the international community must step in to deal with the market failure. That is where I believe that our Government can play a vital role.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Chancellor for letting me know, informally, that they have had discussions on the issue. I would like to see more formal discussions at the G20 and other international summits where the issues of financial exclusion and remittance can be raised. I know that that has been done informally, but what plans does the Minister have to raise such issues more formally in the relevant forthcoming summits? On the role of other agencies, will the Minister explain how his Department is working with the Financial Conduct Authority, banks and other relevant agencies to come up with a solution? What role could the publicly owned banks play? Could we work with them to come up with an interim solution, as well as a long-term one?

I hope that the Minister will answer the questions that have already been asked, but I would also be grateful if he set out his plans for an interim solution, as well as a long-term one, before October. The time line has been set: if a negative decision is reached in October— the deadline set by the courts for Dahabshiil, the biggest provider to Somalia and Somaliland in my constituency—the vital remittance lifeline for Somalia will be removed. That is dangerous. Will the Minister be able to press on with a solution before then? If there is no long-term solution in that time frame, there must be an interim solution so that, beyond October, where there is a time lag, Dahabshiil does not face closure once again. That would be devastating to Somalia and Somaliland.

I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions. I also thank the Save Remittance Giving campaign, of which I am very proud to be the chair, and the more than 100,000 people who supported it. I know that they will continue to campaign and to keep pressure on the Government. I hope that they continue to do so and work with their MPs, whichever party they belong to, to come up with a solution that will protect such a vital lifeline to millions of people in developing countries, especially Somalia and Somaliland.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am.

10:18

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I will attempt to be as brief as I can because I would like to hear the Minister’s views, as well as those of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson).

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for securing today’s debate, our second on this important issue. It is important that we have been able to debate it again so that we can get some answers and see what progress has been made. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and, indeed, Members from across the House. It was good to see the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) in the Chamber. I have worked with him in the all-party group on Somaliland and Somalia, and I know that he shares many of the concerns expressed by the Opposition.

I want to emphasise the strength of feeling out there in the local community. Just before the Christmas recess, I attended a packed meeting in Butetown in my constituency in Cardiff South and Penarth. It was filled with people predominantly from the Somali community—young and old, recent migrants to this country and people whose family had been here for generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West mentioned, Cardiff has a strong and long-standing Somali community, as well as Yemeni, Bengali and Indian communities. This issue reaches across people of many different backgrounds, countries and histories. That is a hallmark of the campaign and emphasises the strength of feeling.

One of the most respected imams in the local community, who does not normally attend political meetings, was there, which again emphasises the strength of feeling. My local councillor and colleague, Ali Ahmed, and many other members of the local community attended. They highlighted the issues raised in the debate today: the impact on development, jobs and prospects in countries such as Somaliland and Somalia and elsewhere, and also the impact on jobs and opportunities for small businesses here in the UK—my hon. Friend mentioned a specific case in his constituency. There were also concerns about zakat and the ability to fulfil the responsibilities that many in the Islamic community here in the UK perform so generously and so well. There were concerns about security and about how people could be forced underground if we do not find a solution. As my hon. Friend said, we could find ourselves in a far worse situation than that which Barclays appears to be suggesting has forced it into making its decision.

I pay tribute to the huge efforts of the campaign and the hundreds of thousands of people who have signed the petition and campaigned up and down the country. I thank the Government—there has been some effort and some meetings. My concern is the urgency, the detail and the process going forward, and I want assurances that the concerns raised by the campaign and by the individuals affected are being addressed.

It is important to emphasise the scale of the impact. The UK remits $23 billion annually to third countries. For Somaliland, the figure is estimated at £500 million annually. According to one estimate, Somalia receives 50% of its annual gross national income through remittances, and Oxfam estimates that 40% of the Somali population—some 3.8 million people—depend on remittances. We have heard how remittance figures often dwarf international aid flows, and I think we would see a similar situation if we looked at the detailed statistics for many of the other countries affected. We have heard about the implications for development and economic prospects, and for security and human rights. That is why we need to address the issue with urgency and care.

I have specific questions for the Minister, and I hope he can give some assurances. First, focusing on the way in which Government Departments work together on this issue, we have seen statements by the Treasury, DFID and others, but can the Minister assure us that the Treasury is playing a key co-ordinating role, given the nature of its relationships with the financial sector and the ability to achieve change on a global financial scale? Have the Foreign Office and other bodies for which the Foreign Office has responsibility been included, and have proper assessments been made? I am sure the Minister will not be able to share details, but can he assure us that, for example, the security services have assessed the implications? We have already seen worrying coverage in recent weeks about the activities of al-Shabaab in the horn of Africa, and we saw the terrible events at the mall in Kenya. Can the Minister assure us that full assessments are being made of the implications of not finding a solution to the problem?

I also want assurances on who is attending meetings. Campaigners have raised concerns that, although a couple of representatives from DFID and perhaps the Treasury have been at the meetings, there has not been cross-governmental participation, so I would like assurances that when discussions occur—internally and externally—there is full participation by all Departments, not just the Treasury and DFID, because the matter affects the Foreign Office, the Home Office and many others.

I want to know about discussions at the international level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, I want to know what discussions will take place at events such as the G20. The problem is being instigated largely by decisions taken by United States regulators. Until we can address the legitimate concerns that the regulators are raising, we will not be able to come to a long-term global solution. Like my hon. Friend, I want to know about the interim solution and when the action group is going to meet.

Can the Minister tell us about the discussions he has had recently with DFID about the clear time frame and action plan for the safe corridor? There is a lot of expectation and hope around that, but also a lot of unanswered questions that members of the community and campaigners have asked, so can the Minister reassure us?

There is a wider issue of engagement with the many stakeholders out there in the community, particularly in the diaspora community, and how feedback is being given at different stages of the process. Some members of the community rightly feel that they have not had the feedback and assurances that things are moving forward at the speed and with the seriousness that we would all like. Is the Minister able to share—perhaps in the Library—some of the reports into the wider implications that have been undertaken internally by the Government? There are concerns that some of the reports have not been made public, which adds to a sense of doubt about whether anything is happening or whether solutions will be found.

Finally, what is the Minister’s assessment of the legal situation and the injunction that has been granted? I appreciate that the Government cannot intervene in the judicial process, but it is a key factor in terms of the timing and that window of opportunity in which we have to find a solution. What is his assessment of what has been going on in that process? To what time scales are we working? Will we get into a situation in which we arrive at that process—or an earlier legal process if Barclays continues to challenge the injunction—and suddenly find that Dahabshiil or other money transfer operators have to close down, and the millions of people who to rely on such services are left high and dry?

I am reassured by a letter that was sent to the right hon. Member for Banbury from the Prime Minister. The letter states:

“Let me start by assuring you that I completely understand the importance of remittances and the crucial role they play...supporting economic growth while providing a vital safety net...we can work with them to come up with alternative solutions so that people in Somalia do not lose out.”

That is a welcome commitment in writing from the Prime Minister. I hope that the Minister can give us assurances that that commitment, and the commitment of his colleague in DFID, will be met.

10:27

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have had an interesting debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for securing the debate. I thank all those who have participated, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who gave a comprehensive speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

I will be brief, because it is important that the Minister has the opportunity to outline fully the work that has been done since the previous debate, and I am sure my hon. Friends will want to intervene and ask him further questions. It is important to put on the record how much of an interest people have taken in this topic since the debate in July. Having read the transcripts of that debate and looked closely at the parliamentary questions and the responses since then, I suspect it is more with sorrow than with anger that people have called for this additional debate today, because, to be fair, there seemed to be a sense of hope after the previous debate that the Minister had taken on board the importance of the issue. During that debate he gave a personal account of how his own family had been affected and how he wanted to see progress made.

I am trying to be fair. All of us know that sometimes when things go into the machinery of Government, that machinery can grind somewhat more slowly than even Ministers would like. Hopefully, however, the continued voicing of concern even by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and so on, has shown the urgent need to tackle the problem, notwithstanding some of the other legal reasons for urgent action.

In his opening contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West outlined how important this issue is, not only for individuals and particular businesses but for the economy, both here and in Somalia and Somaliland. There is also the relationship between the moral issues and the economic issues, if you like: people are trying to provide assistance to individual families and to support businesses, and if that help is not provided there are dangers for the whole economy. We also heard some of the history, going back to the previous debate about the decision that Barclays took at that time and the pressure from campaigners to make Barclays change that decision.

There is an understanding on all sides that we want to do everything we can to ensure that when money is remitted or transferred it is done so legally and safely. I doubt that anyone in any part of the House does not want tough action to be taken on money laundering or any other illegality, or in situations where people are perhaps being unduly and inappropriately pressured over money. However, the point was well made in this debate, and indeed in the previous debate, that some of the smaller organisations and institutions that have been carrying out money transfers have not been found guilty of any misdemeanours or wrongdoing, unlike—as was fairly pointed out—some of our larger financial institutions, which have been involved in practices over the years that have now been brought into disrepute and, in some instances, resulted in serious fines. There are still serious questions to be asked about why there is a problem making progress on this issue. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what work has gone on in relation to the National Crime Agency and to ensure that those aspects are not inappropriately becoming barriers to progress.

I hope that the Minister can also answer the important questions put by my hon. Friends. Some months on from the original debate, during which the commitment was made to establish a working group to take work forward, I find it surprising that my hon. Friends still have to ask who is chairing that group. Has the group met? It has not met. There is now a date for a meeting, but when will it report? Will there be an interim report? What progress has been made? What discussions have taken place in an international context with, for example, the US Treasury and State Department? What discussions have taken place more widely? Are there more reports commissioned by the Government that have not been made public? What is the status of the promised discussions with the British Bankers Association? What can the Government say at this stage, notwithstanding the legal constraints on discussion of the particular issue with Barclays and the possibility of accounts being reopened?

I want the Minister to respond to those questions, although he already has a very long list of questions from my hon. Friends. One important question is about the role of the Financial Conduct Authority. Can he say a bit more about that role this morning?

Having given commitments in the previous debate, and because he obviously understands this subject from a personal perspective, I am sure that the Minister wants not only to listen today, so that he can give answers to the questions that have been put, but to ensure that a degree of urgency is injected into wherever it is in the system that the barriers to action are found. If that does not happen and if we do not have a system that is properly set up and regulated, the danger is that remittances will take place anyway, that the people involved will not be safe, and that there will be further problems down the line.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend is talking about action by Government and Government agencies, and she mentioned the FCA. I understand from the UK Money Transmitters Association that the FCA has started contacting authorised payment institutions to confirm whether or not they have bank accounts that are suitable for safeguarding client funds, as required by the Payment Services Regulations 2009. So action is being taken, but it is action that will result in the closure of these businesses unless a solution is found.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Indeed, and I am grateful to both Oxfam, which has provided me with a briefing, and the UKMTA, which has also provided me with that information. Of course, one of the dangers is that when we begin to investigate these matters, people start to find that there are problems and rather than finding solutions to those problems, the response is, “Well, we will just make sure that it is closed down and doesn’t happen.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I apologise for not being here earlier in the debate; I wished to be here, but I had other commitments. The hon. Lady has outlined her concerns, which this House shares, about the £15 billion of remittances that happen each year. Does she agree that it is not only a matter of making the right, legitimate channels available for these transactions to take place but one of restoring confidence in the system? If there is no confidence in the system, people will feel vulnerable, whatever transactions take place.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. At a point in time where even some of the larger financial institutions have seen confidence erode, it is of course important that people can have confidence in the system, every step of the way, and that that confidence is rebuilt.

I would like the Minister to answer the questions that have been put to him, particularly the very pertinent questions about what specific action has been taken since July. Also, will he now give a commitment that he will personally press for and oversee some of the work, and drive it forward across the different Departments, to ensure that there is no more dragging of heels or things getting lost between the different parts of Government, simply because of the Departments’ inertia? I am sure that he will want to take the opportunity to respond to those points.

10:36

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on securing this important debate. I listened carefully to him and to all other hon. Members who spoke. They set out a well-argued case and made their points well.

Remittances play a vital role in supporting the people and economies of countries throughout the world. As we have heard, they are a financial lifeline for the families of Somalis, Pakistanis, Poles and other diaspora groups that are living here in the UK. A healthy and functioning remittance sector is crucial for thousands of our constituents up and down the country. We heard from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) about her personal experience, and she referred to comments that I have made about my own personal experience. My parents came to this country from Pakistan. They have many loved ones still living there who rely on remittances. I have seen what it is like if sometimes those remittances are missed or not received—it can make a real difference to day-to-day living standards—so I am grateful to Members who have shared personal stories, or told stories on behalf of their constituents, and their contributions show just how important a topic this is.

The UK is a global leader in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. Our banks and regulators have a vital responsibility to ensure that there is not inadvertent financing of criminal activities that could pose real risks to British citizens, as well as to national and international security. The Government are proud of our international role on this issue—we are setting the agenda. The Prime Minister received wide international recognition for his role in driving forward that agenda during our presidency of the G8 last year.

The right approach to tackling money laundering and terrorist financing should support a healthy and growing money transfer sector, rather than stifling legitimate money flows or financially excluding honest customers. I assure hon. Members again that the Government are committed to achieving that approach, and I shall set out the steps that we are continuing to take as we work closely with the private sector to facilitate a sustainable, market-based solution to what I accept is a real challenge.

The context for the debate is the trend in recent years for banks in many countries to withdraw accounts from money service businesses in response to perceived risks, and to reputational and regulatory concerns. That is important, because access to banking facilities makes remittances quick and transparent, and keeps costs low. We need to be clear that neither the Government nor regulators can compel banks to offer an account to any customer. Such a decision taken by a bank is private and commercial, and in accordance with their risk appetite and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. The Government cannot intervene in banks’ day-to-day decisions. I was asked about the publicly owned banks in the UK, and the same applies to them: the Government cannot intervene in their commercial decisions or prevent—

[Rushanara Ali]

The question is about not the Government forcing banks to act in a certain way, but whether discussions have taken place to encourage banks to look at a solution so that they can play an active role. In the session that the Minister hosted last year, the chief executive of one bank was receptive to such dialogue. It is about working with them to find out whether there is a way forward, rather than telling them what to do. Some more enlightened individuals—board members—in the banking sector are worried about the impact of this situation and the damage it does to their banks’ reputations, and they are keen to explore this issue.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Banks should be concerned about the reputational impact that could arise as a result of their decisions. I confirm that the Treasury, the British Bankers Association and other representatives of the banking industry have discussed the issue. We are engaged with all banks, including state-owned banks. I stress that what a bank does, or does not do, is ultimately a commercial decision for it to take.

[Stephen Doughty]

I say gently that the idea that the Government do not get involved in directly suggesting what banks do and do not offer is a little bit away from the point. For example, the Government work closely with banks, through Help to Buy and other schemes, on what commercial products they offer and how they provide them to serve the public. I wonder, perhaps philosophically, why this matter is being treated slightly differently.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the state-owned banks came about by accident rather than design, and the Government’s overriding purpose now is to return those banks to the private sector, with the best interests of shareholders paramount. With regard to Government involvement in the banking sector, he mentioned the Help to Buy scheme. That is a good example of a scheme that is designed to work through incentives. No bank is compelled to take part in that scheme or similar ones, such as the funding for lending scheme, which work through incentives. It is important to consider what the Government can do to make it easier for banks to stay in the MSB sector or to get more active in it. That is the right area to explore to help our constituents.

The Government cannot prevent UK banks from facing supervisory and enforcement action from other jurisdictions. Hon. Members know that this is not just about rules in the UK, because European Union rules, and especially rules in the US, affect many money transfer businesses, because most transfers typically have to be converted into US dollars and therefore touch US soil. What the US authorities think is therefore important.

We are committed to doing our utmost to ensure that remittances continue to flow through secure, legitimate channels. The market is adapting, and remittances are continuing to flow into and out of the UK. Particular concerns have been raised regarding Somalia, as we have heard today. That market, too, is adapting and remittance channels remain open. The supervisors and the Government have been monitoring the situation carefully. We know that all MSBs operating in the Somali corridor prior to the decision by Barclays continue to do so, with a number still having bank accounts. Although individual MSBs may be finding trading conditions more difficult, remitters can still service a wide range of customers in the UK and different areas in Somalia. Additionally, many MSBs across a range of corridors are becoming agents of other MSBs, and discussions have been held with various MSB communities on using cash couriers in a manner that is secure and compliant with legal requirements for the cross-border movement of cash.

We must ensure that our constituents are aware of the options available to help them to continue to make remittances. Since the previous debate on the matter in this Chamber, the Government have engaged directly with the Somali community on these options.

Since the previous time I addressed hon. Members on this issue, I have made a written ministerial statement setting out the cross-government effort to find solutions, which included an action plan to secure the continued flow of remittances. The plan includes steps to improve trust in the UK remittance market by the formal banking sector, for example, through building the capacity of money service businesses and providing guidance on the banking of such businesses. It also outlined the creation of an independent action group on cross-border remittances. Through this group, officials from across the Government are working closely with regulators and the private sector to facilitate a sustainable market-based solution. The first full meeting of the group is scheduled to take place next Friday—31 January. I am pleased to announce today that Sir Brian Pomeroy will chair the group. Sir Brian has extensive experience in this field, as the founding chairman of the Payments Council and the previous chair of the Treasury’s financial inclusion taskforce, and through his work with the Alliance for Financial Inclusion.

[John McDonnell]

Fauzia Adan, a former constituent of mine, is now Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister of Somalia. I am not sure whether there has been full dialogue with the Somalia Government regarding their representation on this group. Has a representative been nominated?

[Sajid Javid]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman specifically whether a representative was nominated or if there will be one in the group, but I can certainly look into that and get back to him. I can confirm that we are working with the Somalia Government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on this issue overall.

The Somalia-focused working group may be of particular interest to many hon. Members in the Chamber. The group has been tasked with developing a safer corridor pilot to ensure secure remittance channels to Somalia. The group will work with the World Bank, which will provide technical expertise, and the pilot will aim to improve the security, transparency and oversight of this existing remittance channel. The Department for International Development has held consultations to identify appropriate representatives for the working group on the safe corridor. International partners, including the World Bank, the G20 and the international strategic alliance on law enforcement, are also supporting this work.

The group working on the pilot has agreed its final terms of reference, through consultation with stakeholders, and these will be presented to the action group next week. The Somalia-focused group, working with its partners, including the World Bank and others, believes that there is a one-year implementation for the pilot project.

Before I conclude, I want to make sure that I have answered questions raised by hon. Members, if I have not answered them already. The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked about international engagement. I hope that I have given him some insight into that, regarding our working with the G20, the World Bank and other international partners. We are also working through the EU. The hon. Gentleman knows that a payment services directive exists, but a second payment services directive is being negotiated with EU partners. We have taken a strong interest in that to ensure that whatever comes out of it does not make this situation any more difficult, but helps to improve it by encouraging the development of rules to deal with money laundering and our other natural concerns that are proportionate and do not make the situation difficult for banks throughout the EU. We have to keep in mind that Britain has, I think, more money service businesses than any other European country, so that is another important aspect of our international engagement.

Several hon. Members asked how well Government co-ordination is working. We have a steering group at Government level, of which the Treasury is part, which meets every single week. As well as the Treasury, the group involves the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the National Crime Agency, which provides information from our intelligence agencies that we think might help, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Department for International Development. The Treasury is a core part of that group, which has proved important in ensuring that we stay on top of the issue and treat it with the urgency that it deserves.

[Rushanara Ali]

I thank the Minister for his answers, but I have a couple of further questions. First, are there likely to be any impact assessments on cash couriers? Will the group’s terms of reference include what it would mean if cash couriers were going into those countries? What should Somali and other remitters expect? Secondly, will the terms of reference be published? Will there be opportunities for people in the community and the various sectors, and for the NGO community and Opposition Members, to feed in their suggestions?

[Sajid Javid]

First, we believe that cash couriers, if structured properly, can play a sensible and legitimate role in expanding provision for MSBs. That can work if it is done in a certain way. The action group is working to produce more guidance on how we think that can work, with the aim of making the banks more comfortable. That is why it is important to discuss the matter around the table with regulators and NGOs, which are also part of the action group. That is important not just in the context of cash couriers, but more generally.

My understanding is that the terms of reference will be published, but I will look into that further and get back to the hon. Lady with a more specific answer. My only slight hesitation is that some aspects of the discussion will be confidential and sensitive, especially those relating to money laundering and the financing of terrorists. I hope that she understands that some information will not be put in the public domain because it would not be practical or sensible to do so. Although I am keen to ensure an ongoing flow of information from the action group so that our constituents may stay updated, I do not suggest that the action group will share all the information that is put before it, or all the work that is going on at a Government level.

[Kevin Brennan]

Although the Minister is not able to order anyone to do anything, I asked him whether he agreed that Barclays ought to consider reopening the bank accounts of businesses such as the one in my constituency that were closed following our debate in July 2013, so that while the court case is being considered, those businesses may get on with the business that they have carried out legally, lawfully and without problem for many years? It would be helpful if the Minister were able to say that he feels that Barclays ought at least to consider doing that, even though I completely accept that he is not in a position to order it to do so.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of his question. I understand why he raises that matter, and there are two parts to my answer. First, there is a legal dispute, and I do not think it is sensible for any Minister to give an opinion on any matter that is before our courts, which would not be helpful to either party in the dispute. Secondly—this links to my earlier point—Barclays has to make its own decisions. Barclays is a commercial organisation. It has to assess the risks of doing business as well as, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow pointed out, the potential impact of its commercial decisions on its own reputation. I will ensure that Barclays receives the report of our proceedings so that it may have an opportunity to reflect on the words of not just the hon. Gentleman, but all hon. Members who have participated in the debate.

[Stephen Doughty]

With your indulgence, Mr Owen, I have three brief points for the Minister to respond to. First, on the time scales and the window of opportunity that we have, will he assure us that there will be key milestones by which certain aspects of the process will have been concluded? Secondly, will the action group report back to the wider community that has an interest after the meeting on 31 January, because one concern is that there has not necessarily been as much feedback and information sharing as possible with the community? Finally, at what level is the weekly group meeting? Is it at the level of directors, heads of team or Ministers? Who is involved in that group?

[Sajid Javid]

First, we all share the sense of urgency on the time scales, which is apparent from all hon. Members who have spoken today and from the Prime Minister’s communication that the hon. Gentleman read out. Naturally, it is always helpful to set targets—I referred to the target that the Somali focus group pilot would be up and running within a year—but we also have to respect that there is no advantage in setting an artificial target and saying that something should be done in six months or a year. This complex issue requires a degree of international involvement and co-ordination, so the most important thing is to ensure that we do the work urgently, but in a way that brings a long-lasting solution. While I share his sense of urgency, I hope that he respects that answer.

In answer to the second question, we will share as much information as possible with all members of the public, although of course the matter is of particular interest to certain communities in the UK. I have had meetings, for example, with representatives of the Somali community, as have a number of officials in the Treasury, DFID, the FCO and other Departments, and we will continue to have those meetings and to share as much information as possible.

Broadly speaking, the weekly meetings involve officials from all Departments, but the hon. Gentleman’s question was more specifically about the level of those officials, and I will have to find that out because I am not sure whether it is always the same officials involved and always people at the same level. Clearly there will be some commonality when the meetings take place, but I can find out more detail and share it with him.

[Kevin Brennan]

I shall intervene to allow the Minister to receive his in-flight refuelling, because we would like to know what it says.

[Sajid Javid]

I have just had a moment of inspiration, so I can share with hon. Members that the weekly meetings are between the heads of the teams in each Department, which will hopefully reassure the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).

I hope it is clear that the Government share the concern of all hon. Members who have spoken today, and I speak from my personal perspective of understanding the importance of the remittance sector, as well as in my role as Financial Secretary. We will stay on top of the issue, engage and share as much information as we can. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff West on instigating the debate, which has been a welcome opportunity for us all to share more information.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Lancashire)

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

10:58

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on a matter of growing concern to the UK public, Mr Owen.

Fixed odds betting terminals have transformed betting shops into high street digital casinos. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is as concerned as I am about the machines, which he described as “mini casinos.” He proposes that action be taken to limit the effect of fixed odds betting terminals and to give powers to local people to decide on their suitability. Such gaming machines are capable of taking bets of up to £100 every 20 seconds on touch-screen games such as roulette.

Roulette is a casino game that has, over hundreds of years, been refined to be as addictive and engaging as possible. That is why it has always been restricted to a highly regulated casino environment, until the bookmakers put it on a machine in 2001, increased the speed of play and turned it into a solitary activity. The availability of that form of gambling on the high street has had disastrous consequences in Lancashire. In my constituency of Hyndburn, in just 13 betting shops, nearly £1.8 million was lost on FOBTs alone in 2012.

There are real concerns with FOBTs in Lancashire, particularly in east Lancashire, the poorer areas of the county and Blackpool. My regional newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, has published numerous articles on the problems of FOBTs in east Lancashire over the past 14 months. Early last year, its concern led to a front page article titled, “East Lancashire punters spent more than £270m on gambling machines in 2012”. That highlighted the scale of the problem in east Lancashire, so much so that many people were simply staggered by that figure. The paper also carried a story about one gambling addict who revealed how he squanders hundreds of pounds in benefits on the virtual roulette machines.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the evidence of the most recent health survey for England shows that the number of people addicted to gambling has fallen since the introduction of these machines? One in 200 people are now addicted to gambling.

[Graham Jones]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. We have to look at all the evidence, as well as adopting the precautionary principle. We also have to take into account all the other surveys that contrast with that figure and show that these machines are highly addictive. The gambling prevalence survey shows that and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, it was ended by his Government; the last one was done in 2010, so the lack of information is partly down to the Government. I know that Government Members signed early-day motion 1030 last year, complaining about the Government’s withdrawal of the survey, which would have provided an evidential base. It is important that we look at all the evidence and at how we arrive at the evidence, as well as using intelligence. We have to look forward, not just backwards.

I return to my story about the gambling addict covered in the Lancashire Telegraph. He revealed how he squanders hundreds of pounds in benefits on virtual roulette machines. The paper reported:

“Nearly every penny of Michael Waring’s benefits—a total of £845 a month—is lost at betting shops.”

Mr Waring said:

“When the machines came out I didn’t even know what roulette was. After three months playing them I was hooked. I took my wages into the bookies. I was convinced I could win and put all my money into a machine. I lost. When I left, the fresh air hit me and my guts were wrenching.”

He resorted to attacking a FOBT during a spree in which he again lost all his money after several trips to a cash machine. He said:

“I punched the machine several times, threw it onto the floor and left.”

My other local newspaper, the Accrington Observer, has also covered the issue of FOBTs and was concerned at the £51 million staked in 2013 on the 48 FOBT machines in Hyndburn. That is almost £l million a machine, which is a considerable amount.

I am not anti-gambling. I occasionally bet on horses and football. There is an element of judgment to such gambling. Odds rise and fall, and there is a significant period between the placing of such a bet and the conclusion of the event. FOBTs, however, are not so much gambling as gaming. As the name implies, there are fixed odds and an algorithm in the game designed to ensure that the player loses. The laws in the UK are weak. When Newham council defended its decision to oppose the opening of a Paddy Power bookmakers on the basis that FOBTs are gaming and not gambling, and so require a separate licence, the judge found with the bookmaker. That is wrong and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to call for a separate use class.

The Gambling Act 2005, which legitimised FOBTs, has three objectives: gambling must be fair and open, it must not be associated with crime or disorder and it must not harm young or vulnerable people. It is clear that FOBTs are in breach of all three. The speed of play is more than five times faster than in a casino, so players will lose their cash much quicker than if they were playing live roulette. FOBTs also increase the accessibility of hard gambling, at up to £100 a spin, to a demographic that cannot afford to play casino games.

Last year, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling commissioned 2CV to poll more than 500 betting shop customers. It found that the average bet per spin was £17, and the poorest and those unemployed were gambling £19 a spin. It also found that the average amount of cash going into the machines was £55, and one in five was putting in more than £100 a time. That poll was taken in Newham, one of the most economically deprived boroughs in London, and provides an insight into why bookmakers are targeting the poorest areas. The results of that survey are not dissimilar to those that would be found in Lancashire, particularly the poorer parts of the county. There are 48 FOBTs in Hyndburn, but in the affluent Ribble valley—an area with twice the average income and many times more wealthy people—there are just 18. In Blackburn, there are 73 FOBTs, while in affluent Wyre there are just 29. There are 157 FOBTs in Blackpool.

As a demographic, poorer people are more likely to start gambling than any other, but they are the demographic that can least afford to lose, and the bookmakers aggressively market the most addictive gambling product to them. Customers will often go into betting shops in Lancashire to bet on racing or sports, only to be offered £20 free credit or the opportunity to participate in a tournament on the FOBTs, designed to get them hooked. 2CV’s polling found that nearly nine out of 10 FOBT users described the machines as addictive, more than two thirds had chased their losses, more than three quarters had spent more than they had planned to and 62% had gambled until all their money was gone.

That illustrates a problem with this particular gambling product, and empirical evidence based on the two most recent British gambling prevalence surveys shows that FOBTs are the most addictive form of gambling. Secondary research based on the 2007 British gambling prevalence survey found FOBTs to have a stronger association with problem gambling than any other gambling activity. Professor Jim Orford’s research, based on the 2010 British gambling prevalence survey, found that nearly a quarter of the profits from FOBTs came from people with gambling problems—and that stretches to 40% if at-risk gamblers are included.

The Government want to wait for research commissioned by the Responsible Gambling Trust before they restrict FOBTs, but NatCen, which has been commissioned to carry out the research, has said that the data alone will not provide conclusions that are an adequate basis for policy. The data will tell us what but not why, and it is the why that the Government are interested in.

Although there is enough research to justify a precautionary reduction in the maximum stake on the machines, the research that the Government are waiting for will tell them nothing about player behaviour. That raises questions about why the bookmakers did not give NatCen access to their premises when it was carrying out observational research into gaming machines from 2011 until last year or why the bookmakers have refused to donate a live terminal, with live data, to Cambridge university for research into player interaction.

It is not just addiction that is caused by FOBTs. Landman Economics analysed the impact of FOBTs, and concluded, because the machines were a non-labour-intensive form of consumer spending, that more jobs would be created in the wider economy if the money spent on them was spent elsewhere. Based on historical growth, losses on FOBTs in Hyndburn are predicted by Landman Economics to reach £4 million by 2023, putting 280 jobs at risk. Staff face dangerous working conditions with shifts to single staffing and threats of violence. The Guardian reported:

“According to an internal memo seen by Guardian Money, William Hill instructs staff not to contact the police when customers not already known to staff damage the machines…‘to reduce the number of reports to police’.”

One staff member in my constituency contacted me worried for her safety in an industry that employs a considerable number of untrained female staff in isolation. She told me that every night she had, on her own, to carry thousands of pounds in cash to the bank. She was gravely concerned about her safety. Betfred is now linking staff pay to FOBT turnover in a take-it-or-resign deal.

There is also a negative impact in tourist areas such as Blackpool. Last year, £168 million was wagered on the machines in Blackpool, with the bookmakers making more than £5 million in profit. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) has said:

“I do not believe that the proliferation of high-street gambling in these tourist destinations is good for tourism.”

The effect has as much to do with the impact on other sectors as on the strong association with crime. The businesses involved are national chains with national profits, providing few jobs and draining tourist spending in those tourist destinations.

There is no requirement for age verification before people play on FOBTs, and no checks on where cash has come from, so the machines are used by criminals for money laundering. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that drug dealers will load cash into the machine, play with minimal risk—for example, they will put £48 on red, £48 on black and £4 on zero—and then cash out after a few spins. That “cleans” the money, as they can ask for a receipt and if they are stopped by the police they can say they won it at the bookies. Ladbrokes is now under investigation by the Gambling Commission with respect to its money laundering procedures, and Coral has recently been rebuked by the regulator for allowing £900,000 to be laundered through its machines by a drug dealer. It rewarded the perpetrator with a VIP trip to the races, as it saw him as a valued customer.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways and say that the machines are so bad that people lose a lot of money in no time, but that they also give punters such a high return that they are used for money laundering. Which one is it? Do people lose money hand over fist on the machines, or do they get such a big rate of return that it is worth laundering money through them? It cannot be both.

[Graham Jones]

I am grateful for that intervention, because what I said is correct. There is a rate of return—a diminishing one. Those who want to launder money play for a short time and put as much in as they can, minimising the diminishing rate of return, but addicts, as I said earlier, play till all their money is gone. The diminishing return accumulates to the point where, as Michael in Blackburn said, there is nothing left. The diminishing rate of return is relevant when people are trying to clean money. Addicts will play to the end.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that addicts are much more likely to be spotted by staff in a shop? They are much more likely to get the help they need than addicts playing machines at home with no one watching their behaviour.

[Graham Jones]

In a word, no. I have not gone into staffing arrangements in great detail, but the changes to single staffing in most bookmakers, with young, vulnerable females behind a glass screen, do not lend themselves to identifying or helping problem gamblers—quite the reverse. People are drawn in, and the result is more gambling addicts. It is slightly more difficult to go online at home and register an account and become a gambler. As Michael said, someone can walk in off the high street not knowing anything about the machines. They might be in a bookmakers, perhaps betting on a horse or a football match, and suddenly they are addicted to a FOBT—so no, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The reverse is true.

It is understood that more than 100 FOBT machines are smashed up in betting shops each week, and internal memos have revealed that shop managers have been instructed not to report those incidents to the police. Despite that, last year there were still an average of 165 incidents a week requiring police assistance in betting shops.

Has the Minister played one of the machines? The Government do not appear to be taking the problem seriously, and she does not seem to be aware of the machines. Councils in Lancashire are desperate for more powers to restrict FOBTs. Rossendale, Chorley, Preston and Hyndburn are all passing motions requesting the Government to act on the mounting evidence that high-speed casino gaming machines are a problem.

The plague of multi-mini casinos, with payday lenders and Cash Converters, has transformed UK high streets. Mary Portas, the Government’s high street tsar, said that

“the influx of betting shops, often in more deprived areas, is blighting our high streets”.

The 50 constituencies with the highest unemployment pump a staggering £5.6 billion into 4,454 FOBTs. We can compare those with the 50 constituencies with the lowest levels of unemployment, which spend £1.4 billion in 1,054 terminals. It is easy to see that the bookmakers target the poor. Hyndburn constituent Ben Smith wrote to me:

“I lost everything from family trust to my degree because of FOBT machines on Great Harwood high street. I know many others still in the clutches of them and I still get tempted to play them.”

If the Minister has met the bookmakers, why does she not meet the Campaign for Fairer Gambling? I believe she has not done so, but the organisation has for some time campaigned against FOBTs; it may provide some valuable insight into the betting industry. However, she seems unwilling to discuss the evidence it has found.

I ask the Minister not to be so naive as to take everything that the betting industry says at face value and to make a critical assessment of the credibility of its approach. When so much of its profit is derived from people with gambling problems, any harm minimisation measures it introduces will surely affect that profit. What reduction in bookmakers’ profits would satisfy her that the harm minimisation measures are working? There is enough evidence to justify a precautionary reduction in the maximum stake on FOBTs, and while the Government attempt to kick this issue into the long grass, it will not go away.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) on securing the debate, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Shipley (Philip Davies) for their interventions, which were, as ever, important and knowledgeable.

This debate on fixed odds betting terminals and their effect on communities has focused largely on Lancashire, but the Government recognise that many people throughout the country have concerns about the machines, and that some people have gone through considerable difficulties as a result of playing them. That is why the Government are working hard and rapidly to make them safer, especially to those at greatest risk. I have made the Government’s approach clear in various debates and answers to questions recently, but for the avoidance of doubt I shall set our position out again.

The Government conducted a review of gaming machine stakes and prize limits last year and as part of that we called for evidence that fixed odds betting terminals present an elevated risk of gambling-related harm. We received plenty of anecdotal evidence from people who have experienced problems similar to those outlined by the hon. Member for Hyndburn as a result of playing the machines. However, we also received formal advice from the Gambling Commission and the Responsible Gambling Strategy Board that a precautionary reduction in stake or prize limits was unsupported by evidence, and was unlikely to be effective in minimising harm, which is what the debate is all about. The Government concluded that the future of the machines is unresolved.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister makes a point about an evidence-based approach, but we must at some point adopt an intelligence-based approach that looks forward. Of course there is no evidence in the future; that is the basis of the precautionary principle. Does she accept that we need an approach that is not exclusively evidence-based, but also about intelligence in applying a precautionary principle?

[Mrs Grant]

Of course we must look at all the factors, and that is why I have had several meetings with various industry people. Someone from GamCare came to see me in my office yesterday, and I am prepared to consider everything relevant, to ensure that we do not just have a knee-jerk response and that if there is a need for regulation it will be proportionate and sensible, and will do the job of dealing with problem gambling.

[Graham Jones]

Has the Minister met representatives of the Campaign for Fairer Gambling?

[Mrs Grant]

No, I have not, but I believe that a round table meeting has been or is being arranged. If that organisation has not yet been invited, I am sure that it will be.

The Government fully acknowledge that fixed odds betting terminals cause problems for some people. That needs to be addressed—the Prime Minister was clear about that at Prime Minister’s questions on 8 January—but we have to be responsible and to take action likely to be effective. For that reason, the Government have demanded that the industry bring in precautionary player protection measures while we look at the evidence on how players can be protected most effectively in the longer term.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

I want to make a little headway, but I will then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.

More specifically, the industry will introduce strengthened player protection measures, which come into effect in just a few weeks’ time—from the end of next month. For the first time, all machines will introduce automatic pauses in play and the option for customers to set limits on both how long they play and how much money they spend. In addition, information on playing behaviour will be available to customers, and the industry will make it easier for players to self-exclude. Those measures are the most significant controls on gaming machines since the Gambling Act 2005. It has been made clear to the industry that if the measures are insufficient, a precautionary approach will be taken, which could include action on stakes and prizes, speed of play or any other appropriate measure.

However, I am not stopping there. I am meeting the chief executives of the five largest British bookmakers again next week when they will be presenting me with plans to link players with data in a way that allows us better to understand player behaviour and to assess the effectiveness of the harm mitigation measures being introduced. I have been clear that if I am not satisfied by the industry’s proposals, the case for prudential moves on stakes, prizes, availability of machines or anonymous play will be made significantly stronger.

In addition, the Responsible Gambling Trust is carrying out research that aims better to understand how people behave when playing gaming machines and what helps people to stay in control. I met the trust in December, pressed it to make progress with the research programme and emphasised the importance of obtaining tangible research outcomes by autumn 2014. I am absolutely clear that the industry must find a way to secure and examine data that links players with play, so that more effective player protection can be developed.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister has made some good points, and I accept that she is now beginning to move towards the precautionary principle, given her comments about the interventions on machines that will come in by the end of next month. Is that not a move from an evidence-based approach, under which nothing will be done until the evidence is gathered despite there being no evidence, to the acceptance that something should be done? We are now applying the precautionary principle and including splash screens on FOBTs to protect gamblers. Is that not a shift from an evidence-based approach to the precautionary principle? Is that not the right way forward?

[Mrs Grant]

No. I have been clear on the matter from the start, and I am quite surprised at what the hon. Gentleman says. The first time I stood up to discuss the issue at oral questions in the House, I said that the machines are a concern, that there is no green light for fixed odds betting machines and that their future is unresolved pending further work that has already begun. I have continued to send out that message.

Whether local authorities have sufficient powers is often raised in such debates, but I believe that their powers are sufficient to deal with concerns. Local authorities can reject an application for a gambling premises licence or grant one with additional conditions. They have the power to review a premises licence after it has been granted and can actually impose licence conditions after review. Many local authorities have already used those powers to good effect—I congratulate Newham, which used its powers in November—and the Government urge local authorities fully to utilise the powers at their disposal to tackle problem gambling in their communities.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mrs Grant]

No, I want to make a little more progress.

Local authorities are also able to use article 4 directions to good effect. I am pleased to say that two authorities have brought forward directions in respect of betting shops. I congratulate the London boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and of Southwark for using powers when the amenity of their communities needs additional protection.

I want to pick up on three issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, he mentioned the scrapping of the annual prevalence survey, which was an expensive way of measuring problem gambling, with over £500,000 of taxpayer money being spent on each survey. The health surveys for England and Scotland now measure problem gambling rates, which is a much more cost-effective and efficient method of collecting data.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to a request made by the university of Cambridge for a FOBT for research purposes. I am willing to write to those concerned to assist in the resolution of that matter. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman remarked on the link between the location of betting shops and deprivation, but I understand that such shops are located according to footfall. To back that up, no significant correlation exists between the indices of multiple deprivation and problem gambling rates. That was confirmed by the December 2013 health survey.

In conclusion, the Government are undertaking urgent work to ensure the safety of all users of fixed odds betting terminals. The industry will be reporting to me next week on its plans for targeted player protection measures for those at greatest risk. I do not rule out any action that may be necessary to make machines safer. If the player protection measures do not prove sufficient, or if the balance of evidence suggests that precautionary action on stakes and prizes or other measures is required, the Government will not hesitate to act.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

St John Ambulance

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

14:30

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, although it is not one for which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) or I wished to call. My name came out of the hat, but I take no pleasure in the necessity of the debate taking place. I am—at least for the next hour and a half or so—the vice-president of the Canterbury and Coastal branch of St John. Before the restructuring of the organisation, I was proud to be the vice-president of the Herne Bay branch in my constituency.

The St John Ambulance service is an organisation that has been revered, honoured and respected in Herne Bay for generations. Its presence at the Queen Vic memorial hospital summer fête, the Lark in the Park, football matches, rugby matches and other sporting events, and many concerts and performances held in Kings Hall has been part of the fabric of the town, and the branded ambulances have provided succour for those injured, sick or in need of transfer from one medical facility to another. In my parliamentary lifetime, volunteers such as the late and much loved John Morriss and, currently, George Tunnadine and his partner have been mainstays of our community. They and many others around the county of Kent have accumulated years of dedicated service to society and the public, and have provided countless hours of hard work behind the scenes, learning and then passing on to others their first-aiding and medical skills.

That wonderful inheritance has been placed at risk through mismanagement and a failure to communicate by those charged with protecting it, preserving it and passing it on to their successors, which is why we are here this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—if he catches your eye, Mr Turner—will deal with specific issues illustrated by and arising from the situation at St John nursing home in Whitstable in his constituency. Others will also wish to have their say, and I am aware that the St John damage control machine has sought to brief individual Members and the Minister about the huge and unqualified success of what others regard as administrative vandalism.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the incredible service of local people to the St John Ambulance brigade over so many years. I pay particular tribute to my own friend and colleague, David Hempleman-Adams, who was the chairman of the Wiltshire organisation, until it was closed recently, and is now a trustee nationally. He would disagree about the structural points that my hon. Friend is about to make.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is sitting on my right, but as those remarks have not yet been made, it might be polite, if nothing else, if he were to wait until I have said what I am going to say. I can say to him that I am sure that the St John briefing notes, which I have seen, will have been well and truly read into the record by the time that we are through.

I will not detain hon. Members for too long, but I need to illustrate with broad brush strokes what has gone wrong and then, as the subject of the debate is the regulation of St John Ambulance by the Charity Commission, set out why the commission has been unwilling, or unable, to intervene in a manner that might have been expected in the interests of those supportive members of the public who have so generously given many millions of pounds over the years to the St John Ambulance service. It is not my style to say under privilege anything that I would not be prepared to say outside Parliament on the record or in public. Nor do I propose—this might come as a relief to some—to name names or to besmirch individual reputations. There is, however, a collective responsibility at the very top of St John that has to be held to account. My understanding is that, in recent years, the St John accumulated reserves have suffered from a near catastrophic 30% loss. I am sure that that figure will be disputed and that “reasons beyond our control” will be offered for the failure to protect the charity’s funds properly.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to pre-empt anything that he might say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) did, but will he recognise at least that these have been tough economic times for many charities? St John is no different from any other charity that has had to restructure itself to ensure that it can protect front-line services. The evidence that I have seen in my constituency, in Braintree and Halstead, and throughout Essex is that that is exactly what St John has been doing.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I get the sneaking feeling that my hon. Friends on either side of me are reading the next paragraphs of my speech.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Roger Gale]

I shall now say—

[Natascha Engel]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am so sorry; yes, of course.

[Natascha Engel]

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I am supposed to be delivering an open lecture between half-past 2 and 4 o’clock—exactly when this important debate is taking place—so I am grateful to him for giving way.

I have had serious concerns for some time about that financial restructuring and about the reporting and accounting within St John Ambulance. I hope that the debate will make the Charity Commission look again at the organisation, the treatment of its members and, most of all, the governance of St John Ambulance, because the commission has not taken seriously enough what is going on within the organisation. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for giving way, and I hope that he will forgive me for disappearing straight away.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I apologise that I did not see the hon. Lady come into the Chamber. I had said that I would give way to her the moment she walked in because, for reasons that everyone in the House will understand, she has to leave for a long-standing commitment elsewhere. She is, however, one of the three Members who pitched for the debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I were the others—and I thank her for her support.

I happen to be a supporter of a significant international charity with which I am fairly heavily involved, so I am aware that fundraising in times of austerity is not easy, that returns on investments may be low and that great care and caution have to be taken to protect assets, staff, and the aims and objectives of the charitable organisation. The reaction of St John Ambulance to the situation it faced—due, I believe, to mismanagement—appears to have been draconian and, to say the least, badly handled. It has cost the charity many members and loyal staff, as well as much support in the country.

Faced with severe losses, St John embarked on a national reorganisation in 2011. It said that that was undertaken following full consultation, but as one who was only remotely and peripherally involved, I am in a position to say that no one within the mantled ranks of the priory appears to have been listening and that such consultation as did take place was tardy, inadequate, unheeded and designed to promote and implement decisions that had already been taken. I believe—in fact, I know—that I am not alone in that experience.

On the lines of an experiment conducted by the UK branch of the Red Cross, the St John counties were abolished, with eight regional organisations put in their place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) indicated, any organisation faced with difficulties has the absolute right to restructure. St John, however, might have heeded the results of the Red Cross adventure, which showed that the loss of local ownership led to a loss of membership, support and local income. That process ended with a reversal of the decision.

[Mr Newmark]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying and I will not contradict—

14:39

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:53

On resuming—

[Mr Newmark]

Mr Turner, I was in full flow before the Division, and I have almost lost my train of thought. I do not contradict the point my hon. Friend is making about Kent, but does he accept that there may be regional disparities? When I heard about this debate, I spoke to my local contact in Essex, our mutual friend, Janie Siggers, and tried to obtain an understanding of what is going on in Essex. The issues that my hon. Friend is raising are not reflected in Essex. Does he accept that there may be some regional disparities?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I accept that. I know the lady to whom my hon. Friend refers and she is extremely hard-working. I concede that there may well be regional variations, and I will come to that precise issue almost immediately, but I cannot help feeling that the fundamental malaise comes from the very top, and that while some organisers have chosen to interpret instructions in a particular way and successfully, others have been perhaps less successful or felt that they were put under pressure. I am not suggesting that the people doing the job are bad people, except perhaps at the very top, and even then I do not mean that they are bad people in that sense.

We now move into uncharted territory, and I will offer the House some observations that have been made to me, not only from Kent but from East Sussex, the midlands and Yorkshire, as examples of precisely this effect of top-down diktats. When events such as this debate reach the public airwaves, testimony also emerges. During the past week, I have taken phone calls and received written communications from people whose details I have but whom I propose to anonymise for the record.

From East Sussex, a volunteer with 35 years’ service under their belt speaks of a branch that in 2008 had a membership of nearly 86, but which has now declined to just three or four. They also tell me of some 13 units whose headquarters buildings are to be sold, and that is in just one district. Another volunteer tells me of training that has gone downhill, with sessions booked from a centralised HQ in Aylesbury that is out of touch with the rest of the new region. In the former area, there were 146 trained emergency ambulance crews; in the corresponding new administrative area, there are only 86. I was told of headquarters premises sold by St John for £80,000 to a developer, who cleared the site and sold it on for £220,000. St John’s justification for that seems to have been, “We’re not property developers.”

It has been suggested to me—of course, the accurate figures must be available within St John—that the result of reorganisation has been a loss in Kent alone of perhaps as much as 75% of the membership. That is all anecdotal, of course, but it is a matter of record that on Thursday 24 January 2013, a special resolution was tabled calling for a vote of no confidence in the priory and the priory council of St John. That resolution was defeated, but in circumstances that the record suggests were, at the very least, bizarre.

Instead of citing telephone calls, I will quote directly. From Kent:

“We learned of the reorganisation in 2011 and that the new structure would be in place by October 2012.

Kent became part of the South East Region on 1st October 2012 being administered from the Regional Office in Aylesbury.

Our County HQ at West Malling was closed and almost all of the loyal staff made redundant.

All funds that were held in County accounts were amalgamated into the Regional Pot.

The feeling among the membership is that the new Regional Directors are trying to run St John as a commercial company and that making a profit is their main aim.

A small number of local events that we covered for a small donation are now not able to run because St John wants to charge them a commercial price and they cannot afford it.

Each Division would raise funds to buy a new Ambulance; they took pride in their vehicle, kept it clean and well stocked and were proud to display their Divisional name on the side of the Ambulance. Those Ambulances have had the names removed and no longer belong to the Division but are moved around the Region with no-one taking ownership for their cleanliness and equipment.

Kent was one of the best-run Counties in the Country with a very strong membership providing thousands of hours of voluntary service to the public of Kent. Sadly, the membership is declining fast and it appears that what has taken over 1000 years to establish the new management have destroyed in just over a year.

I would be interested to know where the funds that we held in Kent have disappeared to.”

From the east Midlands, a long-standing and very faithful divisional superintendent gave the following reasons for his recent and unexpected resignation from St John. I am quoting from a minute:

“That the commercial side of St John was taking over and using the voluntary arm, for financial gain, neither of which is within the spirit of St. John.

To achieve this end there is no regard or concern for the volunteers. We have not been consulted about anything, decisions are made over our heads even when affecting our Units personally, even including the decision to close down a particular unit.

The Leaders of East Midlands Region say whatever is suitable for the occasion, even if it’s not the truth and even if they’d said the total opposite before.”

That is followed by something that is even more disparaging and I will not read it out. It continues:

“The need for change in St. John is understood but the harsh, inconsiderate manner, with few explanations and little consideration of the volunteers, is not an appropriate way to introduce these changes. A more humane, considerate approach could have produced a better outcome.”

Another volunteer from Kent said that

“having been a member for almost 38yrs I am totally confused with this ‘restructuring’. All I see is an excuse to take all Divisional funds away from the Divisions into one large pot… Divisions virtually have to beg for funds and they are a long time coming if they come at all.

We now have a District Manager in Kent telling us he wants us to work with local authorities and KCC and his vision is to cut out event cover completely! Our whole ethos…for the past 1000 years has been to give help to the sick and since we were reformed in 1877 in England we have always covered public events assisting the injured. Our Division has some events we have been covering over fifty years.

I am very sad that everything St. John stands for is being undermined.”

[Mr Gray]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I understand that local people are disturbed by these kinds of reorganisations; that is always the case. Will he explain why this is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, or even why it is a matter worth raising in this Chamber? These might be worrying developments, but are they really a matter for Parliament?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I have already indicated the subject of the debate to my hon. Friend. The debate is about the Charity Commission’s involvement in the matter, which is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government. I will come on to that in a few moments, if he can possess his soul with a little patience.

A community first responder unit said:

“We would like to inform St John that after a unanimous vote by all CFR members we are going to close the Community First Responder Scheme… This will also mean that our St. John Membership will also cease. Some of the reasons that have caused us to take this decision are listed below…poor communication on behalf of St. John…poor record keeping on behalf of St John…lack of information on behalf of St John…forced to purchase through St John’s Services—not the best option…bad press coverage of St. John Ambulance”.

That final catalogue perhaps exemplifies the high-handed, arrogant and remote manner in which the Priory of England and the Islands of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem and the St John Ambulance leadership seem to have severally and collectively treated their volunteers and erstwhile supporters—that and the selling of the family silver.

Local headquarters are, of course, ultimately the property of St John, but with the funds to purchase and maintain those properties raised locally, it is not surprising that a sense of local pride and ownership has prevailed. To see their premises flogged off to meet the costs of the failings and excesses of what they regard as a bureaucratic and elitist London headquarters has proved to be more than many formerly loyal supporters can bear. A cleric from Yorkshire writes that

“when Selby was sold, the property which had been bought by the county had its proceeds taken from them for HQ funds. When a new property was found, the county leased it on a rent and had to pay so much a month for its use out of their own funds. They were not able to use the monies from the old property in any way! The same also was true for the Scarborough Division when it changed properties. I always think that it is unfair when London swallows up what has been raised by hard work in the counties—don’t you agree?”

I have to say that I do agree.

Against that unhappy backdrop, the Chamber will, I hope, shortly hear of the concerns surrounding the future of funds donated for the support of the St John residential home in Whitstable. Members may also hear of the shift—denied by St John—away from its core and Christian services and values, morphing a fine institution into little more than a commercial health and safety training organisation.

To directly answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), I have a question for the Minister. When my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and I referred the conduct of St John to the Charity Commission, we were told that:

“It is important to emphasise that although the Commission’s functions include encouraging and facilitating the better administration of charities, and taking remedial action to tackle misconduct or mismanagement, the law prohibits the Commission from acting directly in the administration of the charity. Trustees are the managers of their charities and it is their job to make the administrative and strategic decisions necessary for their charities’ proper and effective management… The Commission cannot direct the trustees to take one particular course of action or another. Neither does the Commission have discretion to overrule the trustees’ validly taken decision on the grounds that others take a different view, however strongly held.”

Either my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that the commission is wrong and does have the powers to instigate independent inquiries into the conduct and management of St John, or he will have to tell me that the commission is correct and has no powers to intervene. If the latter is the case, the House will need to address that by giving the Charity Commission the additional powers necessary to properly discharge its duties in the public interest.

15:05

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I rise to counter the damning speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale). This is prompted not by any national part of St John, but by members of my local group, for whom I have always had enormous respect and whose service in my constituency has always been of the highest order. It is on that basis that I want to put their views on the suggestions made in the lead-up to this debate about the present management and direction of St John. None of the people I have spoken to within St John is in any way resistant to the idea that the Charity Commission has some responsibility for overseeing the charity, and they would welcome any investigation that might be thought necessary. This is not about thwarting the intention that I assume is behind the debate; I want to provide a wider, more rounded picture of the present state of affairs.

As we know, St John believes that too many people die—in my area as much as anywhere else—who do not need to, and who would not if first aid was available at their time of crisis. My group believes that, since the reorganisation, it is even more committed to St John’s mission, which is available on its website and seems close to the heart of every member of my local St John I have ever dealt with.

The mission is

“to provide an effective and efficient charitable first aid service to local communities”—

my group does that—and

“to provide training and products to satisfy first aid and related health and safety needs for all of society”,

which my group certainly does. The final aim is

“to encourage personal development for people of all ages, through training and by membership of our organisation”,

and my local group’s membership is growing.

I ask the hon. Members for North Thanet and for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) to understand that while they speak for communities in Kent, St John extends throughout the country. It was an important admission that local disparities in service might very well be part of the problem, and that could be an issue when forming a picture of the organisation and its recent management that is perhaps not as complete as it might be. We know that the organisation was, in essence, £9 million in deficit by 2011 and that that deficit was growing. Any organisation has to face the reality that if it is that much in the red and things are not getting better, change is needed. I understand that there might be some objections to how that deficit arose, but it is instructive that, by the end of 2014, this organisation that was recently £9 million in the red will be registering a small surplus. St John has quickly got on top of a financial situation that was unacceptable.

[Mr Newmark]

On that point, the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that although my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) made points about the cuts and their impact, the delivery of services has improved, especially for young people—perhaps in the same way that the Government have made cuts yet improved productivity and delivery—and the training of young people has increased by 37% in the past year alone.

[Mike Wood]

I am grateful for that intervention because it makes my next point for me. In spite of what has happened, and against that background, my understanding is that the organisation nationally—this is certainly my experience locally—has improved its performance. It is training more people and functioning in a much more open fashion, and it has listened and taken note of the report it sought on its governance. As I understand it, the report was independent and said that the organisation was too bureaucratic and complex, that it lacked clear governance policies and lines of accountability and that, essentially, there were too many committees and too many roles. Perhaps that is inevitable in an organisation split over 41 semi-autonomous bodies but, none the less, St John sought to improve that state of affairs after hearing the view of the expert body asked to review it. Again, my group, which is based just over the border into Wakefield, at Ossett, has welcomed the improved situation in which it now functions.

It is also important to look at information from bodies such as the Care Quality Commission. It has continued to provide inspection reports that have shown, certainly in my area, that St John is providing a service of a very high standard. Obviously, if the two hon. Gentlemen from Kent—the hon. Members for North Thanet and for Canterbury—have misgivings about the organisation and management of a St John home in their area, it is their responsibility to make those concerns public. Nobody has any misgivings about that, or any opinion other than that that is exactly the right thing to do. I would have done the same about something in my constituency, but to extrapolate from that a wholesale belief that the organisation is far away from its objectives and delivery targets, as was suggested at the start of the debate, seems to be neither sensible nor safe.

May I make a rather partisan, north-south point? The two hon. Gentlemen from Kent who proposed the debate—they are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who came and went, who I understand was born in Kent—perhaps might just, in their more charitable moments, accept that the world extends beyond Kent. I think that they have to be told that there is life north of Watford.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I spoke for a long time, so I had not intended to intervene further, but I have been goaded into doing so. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), I made it very clear that I accept that there might be regional variations. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) was back from voting when I referred to not only Kent, but East Sussex, the east midlands and Yorkshire, and quoted people from those areas. Although I accept that the issue may be regionalised and that there may be variations in the nature of the problem, I have to ask him to accept that it is wider than just Kent.

[Mike Wood]

I accept that, although I think I was making a slightly wider point: on most indices, Kent is a rather well-heeled part of Britain, and I think—[Interruption.] I understand that that is not the case for all parts of Kent, but I am talking in the round. I think that part of the problem may be the inability of some in the organisation, and perhaps their representatives, to accept that when resources are under more pressure, especially, their distribution may need to be a little fairer than was previously the case. That would certainly benefit—it appears to have benefited—areas such as mine, which now feel that they are better served than before.

I understand that the intention of the debate is to bring the organisation and its management to the attention of the charity commissioners. Nobody that I have spoken to in St John, and certainly not within my local group, has any problem with that—in fact, they would welcome it in some ways. However, I wanted to put on record a slightly more positive picture of the function of St John around the country.

Finally, I again place on record my thanks to the members of my local group, which is based in Ossett. They have always done a first-rate job and are incredibly valued and welcomed in my locality.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. I suggest that Members stick to seven minutes each, if they can.

15:16

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

When I was a child, my father, who was a consultant physician, regularly went off pro bono to train St John Ambulance volunteers in first aid, and in particular, as he was a consultant chest and heart physician, in first aid relating to cardiac arrest. I have therefore had a long-standing interest in the work of the Order of St John and St John Ambulance. As Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, I was very interested in the work that they do and continue to do with the St John Eye Hospital in Palestine. For most Palestinians, Muslim or Christian, I understand that it is the only eye hospital to which they have access.

I hope that all of us will have seen the work of St John Ambulance in our constituencies. St John Ambulance clearly has a vision and an intention that everyone who needs first aid should receive it when they need it and that no one should suffer from the lack of trained first aiders. It is a real tragedy and, indeed, unacceptable that many people have died needlessly because no one was available to give them first aid when they needed it. St John Ambulance teaches people first aid—about 800,000 people last year alone—so that they can be the difference between a life lost and a life saved. St John Ambulance teaches young people in schools and through its activities for young people, including a special first aid programme for those not in education, employment or training.

St John Ambulance teaches people in the workplace and provides first aid products. One of the leading supporters of St John Ambulance in my constituency is Sir Frank Davies, who for many years was chief executive of the Health and Safety Executive. I know he was very supportive in that role of the work that St John Ambulance does in teaching people first aid in the workplace. St John teaches people who become volunteers for St John Ambulance, who offer their skills and time to be the difference right in the heart of their own communities, to be potential first responders at public events, and to provide back-up to local ambulance services. Across the country, St John Ambulance has just under 40,000 volunteers providing first aid services in communities. About half of St John adult volunteers are under 25. St John Ambulance covered just over 50,000 events in 2012 and treated and supported about 90,000 people at those events. That, I suggest, is big society in action, big time.

St John Ambulance is not the only large national charity that, in recent years, has found the need to restructure. The recent restructuring of St John Ambulance is almost identical to the restructuring undertaken a number of years ago by the British Red Cross, which also found that a structure of a number of semi-autonomous county and local headquarters was too bureaucratic and complex, and did not allow it to tackle situations as quickly and as efficiently as it wanted to. The changes introduced by St John were intended to save lives, rather than to preserve a former governance structure for its own sake. It is also important to recognise that as a modern health care charity, St John is registered with the Care Quality Commission, is registered in due course with Monitor and has a whole number of child protection responsibilities. I think the whole House would therefore understand that it is imperative that St John Ambulance has clear governance policies and lines of accountability.

I understand that St John went through an independent governance review, which concluded that St John previously had too many committees and too many roles. As a consequence, it decided to change its governance arrangements in discussion with St John volunteers, as, not surprisingly, everyone wanted St John to be much more joined-up and to have a structure that could move as quickly as possible to bring first aid to people who need it. I understand that, as a consequence, St John Ambulance has made it a priority to improve the training of front-line volunteers still further, and many of the St John volunteers have benefited from a wider range of training opportunities provided under the new governance structures.

In addition to governance and organisational concerns, one of the reasons why the British Red Cross restructured a number of years ago was that it too was concerned about the financial implications of the previous structure. It is clear from annual reports that the deficits of recent years at St John Ambulance arose partly because trustees decided to invest in new charitable programmes and partly because the difficult economic environment affected many charities’ fundraising. There was an overall net deficit of £8.9 million in 2011. However, I understand that St John Ambulance is budgeting for a small surplus this year, and the charity has cash and investments of about £20 million. It is therefore in a strong financial position, but—like all charities nowadays—it looks continually for ways to be more cost-effective in delivering its charitable objectives.

Some of its activities, such as first aid training in the workplace, or providing first aid at events where the organisers make a profit, are run to make a surplus, but that surplus is used to expand St John’s charitable work such as the teaching of first aid to young people, or providing first aid at not-for-profit community events. As the House may know, I am the Commons chair of the all-party group on carers. Often carers need training, but training for carers is at present somewhat haphazard. Given the national footprint of St John Ambulance, I hope that it may be possible to persuade it to consider undertaking training for carers.

It seems entirely reasonable to me that St John Ambulance wants to be a cost-effective, efficient and effective organisation, delivering and expanding the voluntary services that it provides to all our communities. I am fortunate to represent a constituency in Oxfordshire, which I suspect many would consider to be a more affluent part of the country. It is important that the work of St John Ambulance and the Order of St John should be available not only in affluent areas such as Oxfordshire or Kent, but in every part of the country—a point made very ably by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood). I therefore hope that the work of the Order of St John and St John Ambulance will have the support of Members of the House, wherever they come from.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who is also my brother knight, has perfectly properly raised issues relating to his constituency that have been causing him concern. Clearly the charity commissioners have to be accountable for how they deal with any specific complaint made to them, and Ministers have to be satisfied that the Charity Commission is carrying out its duties as Parliament intended.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), for whom I have enormous respect, will also discuss this issue, but I understand that St John Ambulance has made it clear that it will support the Kent care home that has been causing colleagues concern. Indeed, the chair of the board of trustees of St John Ambulance, Rodney Green, who also chairs the Order of St John, wrote to colleagues on 17 October last year, stating in terms:

“It is the Trustees’ key priority to secure the best interests of the residents. The Trustees of St. John Ambulance take extremely seriously their legal responsibility and accountability for the home and have made it absolutely clear that the residents and staff must be given all the support that they need. All necessary funding required by the home to meet the Charity’s reasonable obligations will therefore be made available.”

I understand that St John Ambulance has made it clear that it will ring-fence £750,000 specifically for the Kent care home—not an insignificant commitment for a charity with nationwide investments of only £20 million.

The Order of St John and St John Ambulance have a long history as a Christian- based charity, named after St John of Jerusalem. As one would any large charity with a national footprint involving some 40,000 volunteers, one would expect it to evolve continuously to deliver on its charitable aims and objectives and focus on its most important task of saving lives.

15:23

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I am chairman of the all-party group on first aid, whose administrative support comes from St John Ambulance. So far 25 MPs and peers, from all parties, have obtained the certificate in essential first aid here in the House.

I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood), in putting on the record both personal opinions and facts. I shall not venture into the Kent debate set out by my fellow knight, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), because I believe that it needs to be dealt with as a constituency matter. St John Ambulance representatives will read Hansard tomorrow and see what he had to say. I hope that in some respects they will take on board his concerns about what he senses is a lack of localism in Kent, and the other points he made.

My first involvement with St John was more than 50 years ago, when I was a young scout and trained in first aid. I recognise and echo all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said about that. Notwithstanding the criticisms that have been made—one might have thought the organisation was dying on its feet—there is a remarkable expansion going on, with 30% more young people trained last year than the year before. That is a record of success and achievement. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet said, there are concerns, and I hope that St John Ambulance at national level will consider how it can address them and encourage the localism that I see at the Colchester branch. I occasionally visit the branch—not just the adult training but the Badgers, which is the youngest group, aged five to 10, and the cadets who are aged 10 to 16. The organisation is remarkable and it has evolved.

[Mr Newmark]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will indulge me with one last intervention. As a fellow Essex MP, he will know the tremendous work that the new St John branch in Halstead does. I went on my very first training course in first aid, which was excellent, and I was surprised at the number of young people on the course with me. Will he join me in paying tribute to that work and does he agree that St John Ambulance does an excellent job training young people in basic first aid?

[Sir Bob Russell]

If the Halstead experience is like the Colchester one—and both towns are on the river Colne—the hon. Gentleman is fortunate to have an excellent St John Ambulance centre in his constituency.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury gave some dramatic statistics, and I will add some more. Community first responders attended 31% more call-outs in 2012 than in 2011, supporting the NHS ambulance service. In addition to youngsters, unemployed young people are going through the training system. An initiative launched in the past year by St John called “In their community” enables youngsters between the ages of 14 and 17, including cadets, to use their skills to deliver first aid training to others—that is self-help among young people. In another programme, “Your first aid”, cadets are given a chance to volunteer at events.

We must accept that St John Ambulance, like many other organisations, needs to remain fresh and vibrant. The Scouts and Guides have already gone down that path, and so have political parties. St John Ambulance will evolve to keep in step in society and to meet changing challenges. St John, facing significant financial losses that could have brought the organisation crashing down, tried with the help of operational front-line volunteers and others to find a way not only to save the organisation but to give it a future. I suggest that that is what the restructuring has done, but I think—referring back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet—it needs to find a way to retain the ethos of localism. After all, that is what all political parties want—localism is part of their agenda. One way of saving money is to acknowledge the fact that the semi-independent divisions were costing money. We all recognise that not everyone welcomes change, but new arrangements mean more team working and sharing resources.

This is a welcome debate. The circumstances are unfortunate, but we have on the record the good things about St John Ambulance, and I hope that St John will listen carefully to the criticisms and build on its strengths.

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members are doing very well. I call Mr James Gray.

15:29

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Turner. I will try to be brief because much of what needs to be said in the debate has already been said—I will certainly try to avoid repeating anything.

Let me start with what I believe to be three truths that will be welcomed by everyone in the Chamber. The first is that over many years St John Ambulance has done fantastic work for the people of this country. Every year it attends 52,000 events, many of which would not occur were St John Ambulance not there. An ambulance and first aid service have to be available at such events, and St John provides that at very modest cost to the organisers. I have been a beneficiary of that service.

The second universal truth is that the very many people who are members of St John Ambulance and have been trained by the organisation enjoy their participation greatly. It is a superb volunteer organisation. I pay huge tribute to the people of Wiltshire who are members of our extremely active branches throughout the county. Their great work is much appreciated.

The third universal truth, however, is that when any organisation—whether a voluntary organisation such as St John Ambulance, a business, a military organisation or a political organisation—is reorganised, many people in that organisation do not like it. Those who have been the chairmen or members of the committees of the 41 separate organisations that were previously St John Ambulance—or, indeed, members of the sub-units, or other committees and organisations—do not like the fact that they are no longer involved in the way in which they were previously. I understand that very human emotion.

Let me put the counter-argument for a moment, however. I have been briefed on the matter by my close friend, David Hempleman-Adams, who was the chairman of the Wiltshire branch of St John Ambulance. He assisted in the reorganisation and is now a trustee nationally. He is one of those who say, “We couldn’t go on the way we were. This was not the sustainable structure that we wanted to have for the time to come.”

Let us put aside for a moment the question of whether people in the organisation wanted it to be reorganised, although that is a key matter of great concern, and I am sure that St John Ambulance will be listening carefully to the concerns of many local people that are being raised in the debate. However, as I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), that is not a matter for the Government. It would be wrong if the Government took an interest in the internal organisation of a voluntary body such as St John Ambulance, so the Minister is not qualified to respond to those particular criticisms.

The subject of the debate is the charity commissioners’ governance of St John Ambulance, and of course that, to some degree, is a matter for Parliament and Ministers—or at least it would be if the charity commissioners were not doing the job that the Government have asked them to do. The commissioners’ job is to look at the huge number of charities in the UK—I suspect that there may be hundreds of thousands if we include all the very small ones—and keep an eye on them to ensure that they are fulfilling the charitable functions that they are supposed to fulfil and that they are sustainable.

I think that I am right in saying that the charity commissioners would intervene only if a charity was not doing what it was set up to do, or if it was not sustainable. If a charity were, for example, losing large amounts of money every year and misusing the funds of volunteers or members of the organisation, that would indeed be a reason for the charity commissioners to step in and look that. I was not surprised in the slightest by the reaction that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet got from the charity commissioners—indeed, I strongly welcomed it. They said, “We’ve looked into this and actually these are not matters for us; they are matters for St John Ambulance internally.” I was very glad indeed that the charity commissioners did not choose to intervene in detail on the ground.

I suspect, however, that had the organisation continued to lose the £9 million a year that it was losing until the reorganisation, that would indeed have been a matter for the charity commissioners. I understand that St John Ambulance still has reserves of some £20 million. As it was losing £9 million a year, that would mean that it would have been insolvent after another two years, which would indeed have been a matter of grave concern to the charity commissioners, as well as the organisers of the 52,000 events that the body attends every year and the 300,000 people who take part in it. That would be an extraordinarily important matter, and I am glad that that situation will now not occur following the body’s reorganisation.

I fear that bodies that have existed for many tens or even hundreds of years often become a little sclerotic and very local. We in the Conservative party know that extremely well. Some of our branches and associations are not quite of the great strength and power that was the case were many years ago. We see such things nationally all the time, but I very much welcome the fact that St John Ambulance realised the problem that it was facing. It understood that it would be in difficulty with the Charity Commission if it did not do something about it, and it set about saying, “We provide a first-class service for local people, and local people love being part of it. We will therefore take difficult steps to reorganise the organisation so that it remains solvent for the years to come.”

15:35

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing the debate. I should state at the outset of my speech that I served on the county management board of St John in Suffolk from 1991 to 2010. I am also a holder of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

My observations are very much Suffolk-orientated. They are based on my direct experiences up to 2010 and feedback that I have subsequently received from former colleagues. It is important that we pause and reflect for a few moments to salute those front-line St John staff who turn out at all hours of the day and night, in all weathers, and give their time to help and support others.

I was with members of St John in Lowestoft on the night of the storm surge on 5 December at the rescue centre set up at the Water Lane sports centre. I saw and spoke to them in the evening and in the morning, although I have to confess that, unlike them, I went home to bed in between, and they were cheerful, committed and resolute. These volunteers are doing brilliant work, notwithstanding the restructuring of the governance arrangements of St John.

My direct experiences of St John in Suffolk took place between 1991 and 2010. I was on the management board and my role as county surveyor was to advise on its properties. With the benefit of hindsight, I look back on a well-run organisation. Yes, problems arose, but when they did, we held emergency meetings and addressed them head-on. We ran a balanced revenue budget each year. We had a successful fundraising programme that paid for capital improvements and equipment, and our fundraisers knew where the pockets were to be picked. We had notional reserves of more than £700,000. The number of cadets and recruits remained steady. We had high standards of clinical governance, as endorsed by the Care Quality Commission. We ran the most successful patient transport in the country. Our properties were in good order and well used. Our senior volunteers were at the top of their peer group, and St John was widely respected throughout the county.

St John in Suffolk, although not without its challenges, was run well and was achieving its charitable goals. That said, I am aware that that was not the situation in all counties across the country and, by 2011, an £8.9 million deficit had emerged. Yes, there was a case for restructuring. There were 41 headquarters across the country. There were probably too many people involved in governance and there was a need for a flatter management structure. There was a need for more co-ordination between divisions with regard to fees and charges, equipment and training. One could argue that the fact that St John is budgeting for a small surplus in 2014 justifies its restructuring, although from the feedback that I have received, it is clear that something has been lost along the way.

The priory has failed to take a significant proportion of those previously involved in the governance of the counties along with it on what was always going to be a difficult journey. I do not know the circumstances, but is it right that at a meeting of the chairmen of the eastern region earlier this week, two of them could not attend as they were suspended?

The feedback from Suffolk is not quite as good as it was. Yes, all are working hard to ensure that the front line is not affected. The ambulance services themselves continue to run well. Equipment is provided efficiently, and patient transport is still being run from the former county headquarters, although the service now covers the whole eastern region. However, charges for attendance at events have gone up and, although I understand the need to maximise earnings, bookings as a whole are down. Although financial performance across the country as a whole is improving, in 2013 the eastern region had a deficit of more than £1 million—£825,000 worse than budget.

Fundraising has ceased, at least in the short term. That is probably the most serious effect of restructuring, as the county structure was well established and well suited to fundraising. Recruitment has been hit by the fact that cadets have to pay for their own uniforms, and the hardship fund—in Suffolk, at least—is not working as well as it should.

Some sort of restructuring was necessary, but the fact that Governments of all colours have received bloody noses when they have set about abolishing county councils should have sent a clear warning to the priory to think carefully before abolishing the county structure. As I said at the outset, we must air our concerns and it is important to be transparent. The restructuring of St John Ambulance must be seen as work in progress. The priory must accept that mistakes have been made along the way and it must not adopt a siege mentality against its critics. It must listen to criticism with an open mind and move on quickly from the agenda of suspensions and disciplinary proceedings.

The Order of St John has a proud and illustrious history that stretches back more than 900 years. It is vital for the United Kingdom that the order continues to carry out its good work. It has an important role to play in 21st century Britain. It works alongside the NHS to provide medical care and it gives volunteering opportunities to young people in areas that are often deprived and challenging. We need to move on, and I hope that this debate can be the beginning of the healing process.

15:41

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing the debate. I will make some local points about the St John home in my constituency, after which I will address several of the national issues that have been raised and debated by people who have had a longer involvement with the Order of St John than I have. I should perhaps say that my grandfather was the St John Ambulance county commissioner for Kent. At the time, he was the county’s largest employer, so I imagine that the many years of his time that he gave for free were of some value. That was a long time ago, but more recently a friend of mine has been involved with the St John eye clinics in Palestine, and I am constantly impressed when I see people on the St John operation.

I will focus specifically on the St John home in Tankerton in my constituency. That much-loved home was founded in 1947 and given to the Priory of England and the Islands in 1955. It was transferred to St John Ambulance in 1999, and it has always had a separate governance structure. The people who gave the home its £750,000 in assets did so, almost without exception, because they had a connection with the home. Had any of them realised that its separate governance structure had no legal basis and that those assets might one day be seized by the centre, I suspect that the fundraising would have taken a very different shape. The capital earns around £30,000 in interest, which bridges the gap between the cost of running the home and the income that it receives from residents and Kent county council. The home is small, with only 18 beds, and that money is essential for its financial viability.

I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), but I found some of his contribution surprising. I was surprised by his allusion to the restructuring of the Red Cross, and the fact that he did not pass on—perhaps because St John had not told him—what actually happened with the Red Cross reorganisation. When he referred to the St John home in my constituency, however, I was truly staggered to hear him quoting from the letter of 17 October from the prior, when the letter that we received only a fortnight later dated 5 November stressed that the moneys referred to in previous correspondence could not be regarded as legally restricted. As the separate governance structure of the home is being broken up, there is nothing to stop the priory taking those moneys at any notice.

I will turn to the national picture before saying a few words about the role of the Charity Commission, which is the core of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned concerns about how criticism of the changes in St John has been treated. Of course, wherever there is change, some people will be against it, but never in any charity— I have seen it occasionally in a political party—have I seen the kind of conduct that has reportedly occurred over the past two years.

I shall expand a little on what my hon. Friends have referred to. There was a no-confidence motion in January 2013, as a result of which 10 people were suspended. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) said that the leafy parts of Kent formed too large a part of the debate, so let me quote from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who is unfortunately detained in the debate on the Floor of the House. She was contacted by a constituent who is an old friend and was one of those suspended. She wrote to me:

“I am very concerned to have heard from my constituent that 10 senior members of the chapter of St John were suspended last March on charges of gross misconduct”—

basically for saying that they did not agree with what was going on—

“on account of signing a motion of no confidence in the trustees and excluded from any further work or contact with St John for the best part of a year. A debate was held as a result of this properly constituted and well supported motion, and in the event the motion was only defeated on a 40/60 split.”

Many of those involved in the debate had served for more than 20 years. My hon. Friend continued:

“The process for deciding on the charges has been dysfunctional and frankly beyond parody”—

those are her words, not mine—

“resulting in each of them being found guilty of the charges and given ‘suspended sentences’ of exclusion from office.”

I have dug a little further into the matter, and I want to share one fact that illustrates the extent to which governance has broken down in the organisation. The case was heard by an individual who was, on paper, extremely well qualified. He had a long involvement with St John, he had legal training and he was a clergyman. Unfortunately, he breached the first principle of natural justice, because he had been an extremely partisan participant on the other side of the debate. He could not, by any possible standards, be said to be independent. Such a breach of administrative justice should not be allowed to occur in any well-founded organisation.

I move on to the role of the Charity Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet asked the Minister, whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—I know that, in the short time he has had available to prepare, he has taken a close interest in the case—a specific question, and I would like to ask another one. Is it right that the Charity Commission should confine itself to areas in which it has a specific legal duty to intervene? Might one reasonably expect any regulatory body—one thinks of the Bank of England, as a larger example—to take an informal interest when concerns are reported, and perhaps to do some informal prodding and make the odd telephone call?

I hope that hon. Members do not regard me as particularly pompous, but I find it extraordinary that after a group of MPs wrote to the Charity Commission, it would refuse to see us to discuss the matter. Whatever the merits of a case, if the Charity Commission is not even willing to discuss it with elected representatives, something has gone wrong in the organisation. It may well examine what is going on in the St John charity and conclude that the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, although I maintain that the administrative failings of the process at the centre, and the changing of mind on the various guarantees paid to the St John home in my constituency, need serious answers. The Charity Commission has been unwilling even to hold a meeting. Of course, since we secured the debate, the organisation has said that it will be happy to see us, but it was not able to fit us in before the debate.

[Mr Gray]

May I make a point on behalf of the charity commissioners? I understand that my hon. Friend may well be frustrated by the inability to hold such a meeting. However, does he agree that, if the charity commissioners were to start having meetings of that kind, with either one side or the other, about the many thousands of charities that might well be in similar disputes throughout the nation, they would be doing nothing else with their time—there are very few of them—and would become improperly involved in the internal politics of the charities? That would seem to be an absolutely wrong use of the commissioners’ time.

[Mr Brazier]

In its correspondence to us, the Charity Commission said that a charity’s trustees are legally responsible for all aspects of a charity’s management and administration, which I am sure we would all agree with. It went on to say that the commission would take action only if it believed that its regulatory powers were necessary or would be of use. In other words, an informal investigation is ruled out. That is very odd, however, because, to answer my hon. Friend’s question directly, the Charity Commission’s own description of its responsibilities and duties on its website states that it should be concerned with

“breaches of trust or abuses that otherwise impact significantly on public trust and confidence in the charity and charities generally”.

Given that three MPs representing different parties and areas—the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) may have been born in Kent, but she represents a seat in Derbyshire—had already expressed concerns, and that, from memory a fourth, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, came on board between the two letters, I would have thought that this was more than just a casual inquiry. I would have thought that the Charity Commission would have liked to have been involved.

I have detained Members for long enough, but would like to end with what I was about to say before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for whom I have huge respect. St John Ambulance is a very precious charity. Every single MP who has spoken in this debate believes passionately in it, and most have had a much greater involvement with it than I have. It seems that something has gone wrong, and that the Charity Commission should be looking at that.

15:51

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this important, if difficult, debate. It is important because of the critical work that St John Ambulance does throughout the country, and I would like to echo the words of Members from all parties who have praised that work. Its volunteers are often literally the difference between life and death.

In my constituency, St John Ambulance volunteers are at St James’s Park—for those not fortunate enough to be supporters of Newcastle United, that is the home of football—for every home game, and they were also there for the Olympics. They are out in Newcastle every weekend supporting the ambulance service’s mobile treatment centre, the “booze bus,” so that our young people can enjoy themselves in relative safety and security. They also do vital work, as we have already heard, in educating and training young people in schools across the city.

The hon. Member for North Thanet raised some specific points that I will address in time, but I want to start by raising a few broader points to which the Minister can respond. As we have heard, like many charities, St John Ambulance has recently restructured. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) emphasised the fact that the recession has hit the voluntary and charity sector hard. Last year, 58% of charities reported that Government measures had had a negative impact on levels of funding, and half had taken steps to reduce wages and salary costs.

A survey by The Guardian’s voluntary sector network found that nearly one in 10 charities fear that they will not exist in five years’ time. In its report on the impact of welfare reform in Newcastle, published in November, called “The Big Squeeze”—I have a copy here for the Minister—Newcastle council for voluntary service found that, in the north-east, 30% of charities, rather than one in 10, fear that they will not exist in five years’ time. Nevertheless, year on year, demand for services continues to rise. In Newcastle, 62% of charities experienced an increase in demand for services last year, and 52% were using their reserves simply to survive. Newcastle CVS said in its report that, as a result, charities and voluntary organisations are all having to think differently and change their organisational culture in an attempt to be more resilient. We have heard some of the consequences of that in the case of St John Ambulance.

Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, has said:

“The combination of increasing demand, rising costs and income levels that are often static or falling means that many charities are under unprecedented pressure at the moment.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) alluded to the fact that that pressure is being felt most in our most deprived communities, where charities are often most concentrated. The Civil Exchange think-tank has said:

“Millions of people, especially those who might need it most, are being excluded from the big society as cuts hit them hardest.”

That has put increasing demand on charities, and the issue is not just funding cuts. Welfare changes, such as the bedroom tax, and the reorganisation of the NHS, are putting more pressure on charities. At the beginning of the year it was reported that St John Ambulance is being sent to 999 calls as NHS paramedics are being driven to “breaking point”. It is not surprising, therefore, that charities are finding ways to adapt and survive in a climate of near permanent austerity.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) emphasised that charities are not an arm of the state. We must regulate the sector to ensure that donors know that their money is not being spent fraudulently, but charities are not under the direct control of Parliament. Nevertheless, we must remember the pressures under which charities such as St John Ambulance operate when we criticise their response to those pressures.

While they are facing such serious and sustained financial challenges, charities also find themselves under attack from Ministers in the form of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which is being debated on the Floor of the House as we speak. Ministers seem keen to return to some Victorian vision of society where charities provide welfare and services but do not have a say in policy. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

It is in such a climate that we must understand the operation of the Charity Commission. It has recently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for its failure in tackling fraudulent charities. The Cabinet Office is currently consulting on whether to extend the commission’s powers to act where there is abuse of a charity or non-compliance with charity law. When the Minister responds, will he tell us whether he feels that the commission is able fully to discharge its duties, and the proposed new duties, given the 30% cut it is operating under? Given that its board is picked by Ministers, will the Minister clarify the independence of the commission, which we have debated, and its role in policy making?

We recently learned that the Charity Commission wrote to Lords ahead of their consideration of key amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, effectively “torpedoing” amendments to exempt charities from the Bill, as one charity head of policy put it. It is a strange situation wherein the charity regulator—a public sector organisation—is lobbying for a gag on charity campaigning. Will the Minister explain exactly what he sees the commission’s role as and how it can carry that out given its tight budget?

Finally, we have heard much about the concerns regarding the specifics of the St John Ambulance restructuring, particularly the impact in Kent, but also elsewhere. The restructuring of a shared service—on a shared ambulance basis—has apparently undermined local pride and support for the services on which so many depend. That seems to speak to a desire to ape what is all too often the private sector approach to public sector service delivery. However, the strength of charities is in their local communities, something emphasised by the Government’s talk of big society and localism.

Nevertheless, we all too often see priority given to big national players when it comes to public sector contracts. I hope the Minister will give his views on the importance specifically of local, social and community assets in carrying on the good work of so many in the third sector.

16:00

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I have a great deal of personal respect for all three Members of Parliament who supported this debate—my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) and for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel)— and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet on securing it. I know they would not have brought their concerns about the governance of St John Ambulance to this place in a cavalier way. My hon. Friend spoke in both sorrow and anger and I think regretted that he needed to come here to talk about the issue. We must take it seriously because the concerns are about a massively important institution in this country. The fact that this debate has been so well attended, even though it is arguably about something specific to a constituency, is testament to the importance of the institution described memorably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) as making the difference between a life lost and a life saved.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray), for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood) all took time to come here and record their thanks and thoughts on this extraordinarily important institution.

I normally agree with everything that the hon. Member for Colchester says, but he was wrong about one thing. He said that the senior management of St John Ambulance would be reading Hansard carefully tomorrow. Well, they will not have to, because they are sitting right behind him, which is testimony—I thought he had eyes in the back of his head, but I was clearly wrong—to how seriously they take this debate and the concerns that have been raised in this place. The Charity Commission is represented here as well, so the debate has left its mark.

As many Members have said, the challenges facing St John Ambulance are well aired. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) stated, such challenges are faced by a lot of voluntary organisations—big, small or medium-sized—around the country, because this is an extraordinarily difficult time to be running voluntary organisations. The response of the management of St John Ambulance and the trustees has clearly been radical and controversial. They are not unique in that. As many Members have said, it is not surprising that people have very different views about the rights and wrongs of the strategy. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire made clear, it is not something on which the Government have a view, and as a Minister I do not have a view. That is for the trustees and the members and supporters of the organisation.

What is relevant to us—it was the laser-like focus of my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for North Thanet—is the role of the Charity Commission. That role is extremely important and challenging. We ask the commissioners to be guardians of the integrity of one of the most important sectors of our society, the voluntary sector. That integrity and trust mobilises £14.6 billion-worth of our constituents’ money and millions of hours of volunteering each year, and such integrity and trust is hugely important. There is no doubt that the Charity Commission is operating under very challenging circumstances, given budgetary pressures and the high profile failings that have been identified in the past.

The Charity Commission is under new leadership. There is a new board, which we have confidence in. The leadership have made it clear that they think they can perform their role within the existing budget, but our message to them is that we want them to hunker down on their core regulatory role, because of its importance and because we think that in the past they have gone off-mission. We want them to tackle issues of serious abuse.

The powers of the Charity Commission’s leadership are clear. They do not have a power to intervene outside of a formal inquiry, which is appropriate only where there is serious mismanagement or abuse. They can intervene only where there is serious risk of significant harm to or abuse of a charity, its assets, beneficiaries or reputation, and where the Commission considers that its intervention is a necessary and proportionate response to protect those. Otherwise, the law specifically prohibits the Charity Commission from acting in the administration of a charity. The commissioners do not want to do that, because that is a matter for the trustees. Such interference would conflict with the independence of charities and their trustees being—this is important—one of the cornerstones of charity law in England and Wales, provided they act within the law and the terms of the charity’s governing documents.

The trustees of a charity are ultimately responsible for its management. They have broad discretion to exercise the powers open to them under charity law and the charity’s governing document as they consider the best interests of the charity and its beneficiaries. That is the framework under which the Charity Commission operates. I know the Kent Members of Parliament—my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for North Thanet—do not agree with its position, but the commissioners feel they have not seen any evidence that funds have been wrongly classified or misappropriated by the trustees. In the absence of such evidence, they feel they have no regulatory remit, although they stress they have provided advice on resolving the dispute.

I have no grounds on which to challenge such a position. I welcome the fact that the commissioners have agreed to meet the Members. I would be disappointed if that was solely because of the noise around this debate, but I am assured that a meeting will take place. On the basis of this debate, and because of the importance of the underlying issue, I will write to the chair of the Charity Commission to seek his assurances that the charity commissioners have looked at the issue in a proper way and not in a dismissive way. I would like that assurance and I welcome the commitment to a meeting.

On the attitude of St John Ambulance—the seriousness with which it sees the debate is reflected by its presence here—I spoke to the chief executive this morning. She was adamant about the commitment of the trustees to support the St John home. That has been put in writing, but I had her personal assurance on that and her personal commitment to meet both Kent Members of Parliament in person for a discussion.

I was obviously concerned to hear about accusations of high-handed and remote bureaucracies in London, but the leadership are prepared to sit down with both MPs to discuss the concerns in person, which I welcome. I imagine there is a great deal of local unease underlying this, not least from the families of the residents of the home, where the uncertainty is unsettling. It would be good if that concern could be settled at a local level, but those who have concerns about the governance of the charity will have the opportunity to discuss them with the leadership of the charity. It is a magnificent national institution.

The Government recognise everything that Members have said about the importance of the charity. As Minister responsible for youth, I recognise the extraordinarily valuable role that it plays in training young people; as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree said, the number of young people being trained grew significantly last year. So its work is enormously important, and it is critically important that we continue to take great pride in this institution and trust it.

This debate has secured an important objective in airing Members’ concerns and in ensuring that both the Charity Commission and the leadership of the charity itself respond to those concerns. I welcome that.

Flooding (Somerset Levels)

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

16:10

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am delighted to be under your chairmanship once again, Mr Turner. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) in Westminster Hall to take part in this debate about the serious flooding in Somerset.

I have stood in this place and made many similar speeches before. I have criticised the Environment Agency annually because the flooding in our area has become an almost annual crisis—and here we are again, mopping up after the latest deluge, listening to the same lame excuses and hoping that there will finally be some sensible action. I have to tell this House that many of my constituents are not as restrained as I am, and who can blame them, or anyone else across Somerset, for feeling like that? In my constituency alone, 17,000 acres of land on the Somerset levels are now under water: homes are uninhabitable, farms are unworkable and jobs are being expensively destroyed. A huge area of Somerset is now drowning under water that should have been prevented from getting to where it is now.

What went wrong? Was it climate change or incompetence? Let me read an extract from a constituent’s e-mail:

“As I write, the village of Moorland is slowly flooding. Earlier today the Environment Agency brought in additional pumps at Northmoor. But local farmers begged for pumping to start in earnest ten days before Christmas. However, the response was just too slow”.

These floods were predictable and predicted—the Met Office knew that it was going to rain, and anyone in Somerset with half an ounce of common sense or a bit of seaweed would also have realised it—but the Environment Agency apparently failed to cotton on. In spite of its highly paid bosses and a huge team of experts it missed that fact.

The Environment Agency is one of the most expensive quangos in this country. It employs more people than the Canadian environment agency, and the number of people employed by the environment agencies of Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and Austria put together do not match the number of people that our agency employs. Many of those countries have far longer coastlines and in some cases far bigger populations than we do, but their environment agencies cost a great deal less and do a better job than ours. Why are we spending £1 billion a year on the Environment Agency? Are we seriously getting value for that money?

On the Somerset levels, people are scared and angry—very angry. My local council in Sedgemoor is angry, and I am sure the same is true in Taunton Deane and Mendip. These floods shut off our major roads; the resulting detours add many miles to our journeys, which consequently cost us more. The roads that have flooded have sunk 12% in Sedgmoor. That is not a freak act of nature; it is unforgiveable negligence. Nineteen years ago, the two main rivers that run through Sedgmoor were regularly dredged by the old river boards. Dredging was expensive, dirty and repetitive, but it was a job that everybody realised had to done, because rivers on low-lying land silt up if they are not dredged. That is common sense.

Once upon a time, Sedgmoor was probably part of the Bristol channel, until the Romans arrived and dug ditches. It took Dutch engineers to tame the levels in the 17th century. They understood the consequences of doing nothing, as much of their own country is below sea level. It is well worth dwelling on that fact: over Christmas and in the ghastly wet days that followed, almost the same amount of rain that flooded my constituency fell in the Netherlands, but there were no floods in the Netherlands, because in Holland they dredge, they prepare and they protect. They plan for the worst and rarely suffer a problem.

One of the benefits of regular dredging is that the riverbanks are built up at the same time. It is a double whammy—ask any Dutch hydrologist. However, 18 years ago the Environment Agency was created and it made a policy U-turn that took everybody completely by surprise, and we have all been suffering from it ever since. Regular dredging of the Parrett and the Tone came to an abrupt end, and the agency decided that the future lay in managing any floods that might result. The agency bears huge responsibility for all the problems that have happened. The Parrett and the Tone are now so silted up that in some places they no longer act as rivers at all.

[Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate today. In my conversations with residents, business people and farmers on the levels, they raise three points with me. One is about whole-river catchment and additional house building in Taunton, and whether that is having an effect on flooding, including making it more rapid. Another issue is pumping, and my hon. Friend has already touched on that, but I would be grateful if he expanded even further on the main issue—the No. 1 priority for people on the levels—which is dredging. I am told that the Tone and the Parrett are operating at only about 60% of their capacity, due to their silting up. Everybody who I speak to on the levels is convinced that dredging is the No. 1 action that needs to be taken to try to prevent this terrible flooding problem in the future.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

rose—

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Of course I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Tessa Munt]

I would like to add a plea for the Axe and the Brue to be dredged, because they are also in need of dredging, and the level of flooding caused by those rivers is extremely worrying for my constituents. So it is not only the Tone and the Parrett that need dredging but the Axe and the Brue.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

My hon. Friends are both absolutely right. This is a ridiculous situation. All our rivers need to be dredged, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells has done an enormous amount for the Brue and the Axe, as indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane has for the rivers in his area. He is absolutely right that we are 40% below capacity. If we took an empty Coke bottle and filled 40% of it with sand, we would not get the Coke in the bottle. It is ridiculous to be told otherwise. I see on the BBC website that the Environment Agency says our comments are “too simplistic”. Is the agency now insulting the people of Somerset? I think it is.

The dramatic effect became visible in summer floods two years ago. The rivers could not drain water away because of the volume of water pumped into them, which happened precisely because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane says, the capacity of both the Tone and the Parrett is so greatly reduced. The Environment Agency was attempting to push water into an outlet that was already completely full. The agency was also having great difficulty pushing water because many of the pumps being used were more than 40 years old and—as we have now discovered—they had not been properly maintained. In case anyone was wondering, the responsibility for maintaining pumps is the Environment Agency’s, nobody else’s.

I am afraid that the people at the agency are what we call serial offenders. They stick to an agenda that seems to allow them to do exactly what they want. The agency’s own literature is full of vague phrases and get-out clauses. No. 1 is:

“We will continue to maintain defences where there is an economic case to reduce the risk from flooding to people and property.”

What do they mean by the words:

“where there is an economic case”?

Who decides that? No. 2 is:

“We will continue to maintain defences that are required to protect internationally designated environmental features from the damaging effect of flooding, for example Sites of Special Scientific Interest.”

That is a big clue. The agency will go out of its way to protect “internationally designated environmental features”, but not our farms or our people. No. 3 is:

“We will consider maintaining defences that do not fit categories 1 and 2 above”—

this is absolutely true—

“but where work is justified due to legal commitments or where stopping maintenance would cause an unacceptable flood risk.”

Note that the agency will only “consider” maintaining defences; it does not promise to do anything at all. No. 4 is:

“We will, following consultation, consider stopping maintenance of defences that do not fit the above three categories. We will work supportively with interested parties to explore options in such circumstances.”

So the agency admits that it may stop maintaining some defences altogether, which is precisely what it did in 1995, as soon as it was established. We have been struggling with those daft decisions ever since.

The Environment Agency believes that the levels should be allowed to return to the swampy wilderness that they were in the middle ages, and all in the name of “managed flood risk”. The most it is prepared to do is to dig out teeny-weeny bits of two rivers—“pinch points”, as it calls them. One of them, at Burrowbridge in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, is not capable of being dug out. The agency promised to do the work last year. It started—guess what?—in October and it is not even halfway through the work. The price of this unfinished business alone is put at roughly £4 million. Obviously, that is a great deal of money. I have no idea whether or not the agency is telling the truth about the figures; we are taking the best guesstimate we can.

The Environment Agency’s argument throughout the past 19 years is that dredging is uneconomic—tell that to the locals—but when Northmoor and Currymoor were allowed to sink beneath the flood waters last year, I can tell this House that the real cost to the local economy was in the region of £10 million.

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I support my hon. Friend’s last point on the economic analysis of the cost of flooding. I have first-hand experience of speaking to people who live on the levels in my constituency. They are unable to get their children to school, they are unable to get to work, and local businesses such as pubs lose a large amount of their custom during the busy new year period. That is hugely detrimental to people living in that part of Somerset, and it needs to be factored in to any cost-benefit analysis of dredging.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I thank my hon. Friend. He puts the situation in a beautiful nutshell. That is delightfully put.

We are suffering because of inadequacy and absolute ineptitude. Why should people not get to work? People in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome are carrying out their bins in boats, which is farcical in the 21st century. I know you would not put up with that on the Isle of Wight, Mr Turner, and neither should we. You have a bigger island than we have.

The previous chief executive of the Environment Agency, Barbara Young, or Baroness Young of Old Scone as she is now, once admitted that she would like to place limpet mines on all the old pumping stations just to get rid of them. She preached the gospel of sustainability, and she said that the only long-term solution would be to open the flood banks and let the waters spill over the flood plains wherever the rain or tides dictate. What has changed? Lady Young has gone, but her director of operations, Paul Leinster, adopted most of her dotty ideas and took her £200,000 a year job—nice if you can get it.

Today on the levels, the Environment Agency spends far more money creating floods than averting them. Right now the agency is pioneering an extravagant, ridiculous scheme to flood the Steart peninsula near the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, which we in Somerset know about, in order to create a “wonderful” habitat for wildlife. The agency will also prove to the nosey parkers in Brussels that we are doing all we can to meet EU objectives to make life more comfortable for reed warblers. That is of course a load of nonsense, absolute rubbish and a waste of money. The agency is spending £31 million digging holes on Steart. I am all in favour of our feathered friends—I should be—but I have missed something. Is a new European directive likely to put birds before people? I am beginning to wonder.

Poor people are being baled out of their homes in Northmoor, Moorland and across Somerset, and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome will say a few words about that in a minute. The Environment Agency has a woeful track record of being led by wets, do-gooders and twitchers. Lady Young with her limpet mines was once chairman of English Nature and chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Tweet, tweet.

The noble Lord Smith of Finsbury, Chris Smith as he was when he was Labour, remains chairman of the Environment Agency until July 2014. He is a typically wishy-washy man and a townie. He is a man who described last year’s flooding as being caused by the “wrong type of rain” when he stood in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane. The Environment Agency wants us to believe that it is far too expensive to dredge rivers, which is rubbish. If those people really cared about the environment, they would know that failure to dredge completely upsets the ecology of the whole area and the very wildlife that they religiously want to protect.

So what are we going to do in Somerset? Wait until Lord Smith pulls his finger out of the dyke, metaphorically speaking? I am afraid that we have had enough. We are not going to put up with it, year in and year out. Flooding is not a once-in-100-years event now; it is happening every year. The Royal Bath and West show and Michael Eavis of Glastonbury festival fame have started rattling tins to try to raise £2 million towards dredging. That money is gratefully received, and they are doing a good job, as my colleagues in Somerset know. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Government would care to give as generously, or at least lean or sit heavily on the Environment Agency to give seriously. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government could sit on the Environment Agency.

It is always being said that the Environment Agency is broken, but it is still the biggest quango on the planet as far as I am concerned. The fundraisers are already talking to the Dutch. There is a wonderful machine used in East Anglia which has been brilliant, and I am going to go to see it in action—I am arranging to see Dutch engineers to support the task, and I will speak to my Somerset colleagues about it. The task is not difficult or impossible. We can do it on a much bigger scale in different areas. I am meeting members of the Dutch Parliament in Strasbourg next week at the Council of Europe to talk about what they can do to help us to get the Environment Agency to change its mind.

The Environment Agency has failed us once again, and I am absolutely sure that the Minister and the whole Government want the organisation to be slimmed down and to make it work better and more efficiently. Now is the time for action. Will the Minister please tell us what we want to hear? The people of Somerset not only deserve this; they need it. Get the rivers dredged and give us hope.

16:24

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words and to congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate. The Minister must have wondered what on earth he has wandered into at this Somerset festival of complaint. He can pass on the comments that are more apposite for another Department.

I just want to say on behalf of my constituents that yet again we are facing what are described as once-in-100-years events, which now seem to happen every year. Villages and communities in my constituency are cut off. Muchelney—the clue is in the name, which means “big island”—has reverted to being an island for the past several weeks, and it will continue to be so for weeks to come. Individual constituents have also been cut off. I have just been on the phone to a constituent who has a relatively new house built over the past couple of years to the requirements of the Environment Agency to be above the flood line; nevertheless, she has found herself cut off.

We want to get across the message that, first, the floods this year are worse than ever. We are used to flooding on the levels, but these floods are worse than ever. Places in my constituency have flooded that have never previously been flooded. The road at Pibsbury, one of the main roads into Langport, is closed. Aller drove is flooded, which may be a result of the Environment Agency tinkering with the spillway there. Nevertheless, houses there are flooded.

There is a strong feeling that we now have to do something about the flooding. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), who has responsibility for flooding, for taking the trouble to come down to my constituency last Wednesday. I took him around the road closures and the flooding, so far as I could, to see the affected areas. He was both fascinated and appalled to see the situation. He kindly joined me at a meeting in Somerton with what nowadays we call stakeholders—people who know about flooding. There was unanimity on the Somerset end that we want exactly what the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset set out.

What we need to do is increase the capacity of our watercourses, which means the Parrett and the Tone; it also means the local clearing of our watercourses and rhynes to provide capacity so that we can run the pumps and get water away. That is what people find most offensive—that we cannot get water away. The pumps are not even on at the moment. We have a forecast for heavy rain at the end of this week, and right at this moment the local authority is considering whether it needs to declare a major incident for this weekend.

Dredging, dredging, dredging is our first request to increase capacity. Secondly, how on earth is it that a main road, which is mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), the A361, can be closed for weeks? It is the main road from our part of the world to Taunton. The Minister’s Department can help communities to help themselves by providing support for the mitigation work that is needed and for the cost to the local authority of road maintenance. When such causeway roads are flooded, they literally fall apart and we as council tax payers have to pay.

Will the Minister please take those messages back? I am confident that this is the year we will do something about the flooding on the Somerset levels, not to prevent it ever flooding again—we understand that flooding happens—but to stop water getting into people’s houses, to stop communities being cut off and to stop the water sitting for week after week with nothing apparently happening.

16:28

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing this debate. Before I answer some of the points that have been raised and comment on the issues, particularly those affecting local authorities, I acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) on my position in responding to some points that probably sit better with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We will ensure that that Department receives a note of what has been said today. However, I will address his comment on the possibility of a major incident being called at the weekend.

As we have been sitting here during this afternoon’s debate a major incident has been called in Somerset at the request of the council. A meeting of the strategic co-ordination group has just concluded, and for the moment the situation will be managed in the county to ensure assistance is provided as required. The Government liaison officer from my Department will be in attendance. Indeed, the chief fire and rescue adviser is sitting in the room at this very moment.

I am pleased that we are having this debate, not least because it provides an opportunity to put on the record, while we talk about local authorities, the Government’s and my appreciation for the effective way in which emergency responders, local authorities and the emergency services, in particular the fire service, managed the flooding events witnessed across England throughout December into January, and for the continued support that local authorities and the wider community are providing during the ongoing flooding of villages on the Somerset levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset commented on the role played by local authorities, which have worked hard to ensure that people have what they need and should be congratulated.

I also want to say how sorry we are for those people who have had their homes or businesses flooded, some of whom have experienced re-flooding. I represent a constituency that has recently experienced tidal surges and flooding, and the effects are felt not just in the loss of personal possessions but in the wait for a home or business to dry out and be fit to live or work in again—flooding is equally devastating for business owners. It is horrible time for all those affected and our thoughts obviously go out to them.

We cannot prevent flooding completely, as hon. Members have acknowledged. When the weather deteriorates, there are well practised approaches to warning and informing emergency responders and the general public of what is likely to happen. That is why we have local resilience forums, one for each police force area, identifying the risks faced at the local level and drawing up plans to ensure a response if such risks materialise. If local responders are overwhelmed or if an emergency affects multiple areas, the Government can support the response.

For all emergencies, the lead Government Department —in this case the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—is responsible for monitoring the situation on the ground, assessing what, if any, Government support is needed in the immediate aftermath, and ensuring that the Government as a whole respond as necessary. Throughout this entire period of severe weather that England has experienced, the Department did exactly that, including convening daily, often twice-daily, teleconferences of officials, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs chaired daily meetings of Cobra.

I want to be clear about what the Government have done to help communities to recover from these most recent floods. We have been there in the aftermath: not only have we activated the Bellwin scheme for emergency financial assistance, but on 17 January I announced a further severe weather recovery support package that local authorities can call on over and above Bellwin. We have continued to work with local authorities in their transition from response to recovery, and our officials have called the chief executive of every local authority affected by the flooding so that we are clear about the local impacts. We are already inviting every local authority leader from affected communities, along with representatives from the voluntary sector, to meet me to discuss any further support that may be necessary and to look at the lessons learned exercise, which some Members have commented on today.

[Tessa Munt]

I wonder whether I might draw the Minister into looking forward. I appreciate everything that has been done and absolutely endorse his comments about those who act in emergencies. The reality, however, is that if the money paid by internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency is given back to the IDBs, such as the Axe Brue IDB in my area, along with some responsibility, then contractors with expertise and knowledge of the local area can actually carry out work to prevent flooding in future.

We really have to address this. I spoke with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), then the Minister with responsibility for flooding, when he visited farmers in my constituency in April last year. Promises have been made, but we need to take action and stop the poor farmers and landowners, who are paying rates to the drainage boards, having to pay twice. Every time they are asked to respond by taking action to help themselves, they have already paid for that response in the money that goes to the Environment Agency. We have to do something.

[Brandon Lewis]

All hon. Members have made strong, passionate cases for ensuring that progress is made and that they get the right response, including, in particular, forward work by the Environment Agency across Somerset. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to look at the information and will be speaking to Members. The Prime Minister has already announced that the Secretary of State will be coming back to the House in the next couple of weeks to discuss where we are going and what the Environment Agency’s next steps will be. Members will then have the chance to quiz him further.

[Tessa Munt]

I have to say that the Environment Agency has been pretty clear locally that it cannot cope with the situation, so much more radical action is needed. The expertise sits in the internal drainage boards. They have the people with all the knowledge and they should be allowed to do the work. They can do it. Somebody needs to take some action about removing that responsibility from the Environment Agency.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be putting that point to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I want to say a little bit about the Bellwin scheme, which has been supporting affected areas since we activated it in December. As most local authorities are fully aware, it is a means by which the Government can reimburse a local authority for its immediate and uninsurable costs associated with responding to an emergency or disaster in its area. Bellwin is a well recognised and respected funding scheme. Local authorities have one month from the end of an incident to notify the Department that they intend to apply for activation of the Bellwin scheme. So far, 37 authorities have given us notification. The colleagues of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset at Somerset county council have already registered an interest to apply for Bellwin support in respect of the current flooding.

Due to the way the Somerset levels and moors are managed, they are designed to flood, which results in the entire area effectively still remaining a response phase to the recent flooding—as I said, a major incident has been declared today—and will remain so for some weeks. I recognise, however, that the recent flooding in some villages is worse than that seen in 2012. The full extent of the flooding may not be realised until the levels and moors are fully pumped out. My chief fire and rescue advisor has offered additional pumping capability and the use of local fire and rescue services’ high-volume pumps to support the local Environment Agency efforts in returning the levels to a safer capacity for this time of year. They have further supported Somerset county council by providing a fire boat and crew, to be used as ferry service for the residents of the cut-off villages to enable them safely to obtain necessary supplies, and this will remain in place.

I have been advised that the local Environment Agency took action to mobilise pumping appliances in advance along the River Parrett. This was following the numerous contingency plans that have been put in place since the 2012 floods. In recognition of the serious impact that the flooding is having in Somerset, the Environment Agency is mobilising an additional 20 temporary pumps, increasing its pumping capacity by 150% and making it probably the single biggest pump mobilisation in the country. The agency has also brought in extra manpower from around the country to support what has been a 24/7 incident response for some weeks.

Since the summer flooding of 2012, the Environment Agency has been working with several local organisations and communities to consider how best to manage future flood risk in the levels area. Members have made their views clear on that today, and I will ensure that comments are fed back to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). A local task force, comprising locals, partners and communities, has been established to develop a clear, long-term vision for the future of the Somerset levels and moors. The task force will be funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, local authorities and local environmental groups with expert support from both the Environment Agency and Natural England.

On dredging, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset in particular, the Environment Agency is working closely with local partners to develop options to improve the situation on the levels.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

I am sorry to intervene here, but I never hesitate to correct a Minister. I know that he is working from what material he has, but that is absolute rubbish. The Environment Agency is not working with locals and certainly has not been in touch with Members from Somerset, and I am not aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has had any more success than us. That is absolutely not the case at all. I am sorry to have to correct the Minister.

[Brandon Lewis]

It is a point well made. If my hon. Friend’s understanding is that the Environment Agency is not meeting locals, I will certainly feed that through to DEFRA Ministers to ensure that they instruct the Environment Agency to talk to locals about what they are doing and how they are doing it in order to get things moving in a way that is satisfactory for everyone. Ultimately, we want to ensure that residents, on whose behalf hon. Members have spoken so passionately today, are properly protected.

[Mr Heath]

What the Minister may not realise, because his Department is not leading on this, is that the issue is the policy that the Environment Agency is required to follow. In cost-benefit analysis, we will always lose out to city and urban areas. What we are saying today is that we have simply run out of patience. A political decision and a governmental decision are needed, and I am confident that my former colleagues in DEFRA will make that political decision.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He read my mind because I was going to say that the matter will depend on the economic case according to existing policy. I will ensure that the Secretary of State knows hon. Members’ views on the criteria. The Department will look at the matter, and I expect hon. Members to continue to quiz us and to make the case for Somerset.

As I said, I was pleased to be able to announce on Friday the extra support we are giving to local authorities on top of the Bellwin scheme. There will be a clear expectation for results to be achieved with the extra funds. Local authorities will have a key role in identifying priorities for assistance, working closely with communities and businesses to enable that to happen, using the re-prioritisation of existing budgets that we announced. My officials are working to finalise arrangements for allocating the money and will be writing to chief executives very shortly to outline exactly what the application process will be.

In closing, I turn specifically to the role of local authorities, which are often subject to a tough line from hon. Members and residents about what they do not do. This afternoon, hon. Members have recognised that local authorities have worked really hard and have provided superb support for the communities, pressing the case to make sure that people have the right support in the tragic situations in which they find themselves. The Bellwin scheme is there to provide extra support, as will the money we announced on Friday. Flooding is devastating for those affected, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing and to support the work of the emergency services, local authorities and voluntary groups.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Many council leaders are watching our debate, and information has been sent through to us. Could the Minister convene a meeting of the leaders of the affected councils—Taunton Deane, Sedgmoor, Mendip, South Somerset and West Somerset—to talk about the matter in greater detail? Perhaps he will think about that.

[Brandon Lewis]

I would be happy to do that. This week, we are writing to every local authority in the country that has been affected by flooding to invite them to send representatives in relevant and logical groups to talk to me about the issues. Those letters may already be on their way to chief executive and leaders. I will ensure that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes note of what has been said today that is relevant to that Department.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate that makes clear the case for the people of Somerset.

16:43

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

Rothschild Bank and Mortgage Equity Release (Spain)

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Westminster Hall

17:08

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is a delight, Mr Turner, to serve under your capable stewardship again this afternoon. I am delighted to have secured this debate about an issue of direct concern to not only my affected constituents but, as I have become aware, several hundred other UK citizens. I am seeking justice for them. I urge financial institutions such as Rothschild to come clean on their involvement and to discharge their moral responsibility towards people, many of whom are elderly and retired, who risk being left destitute. That has happened primarily because they had good reason to believe that Rothschild was the reputable and trusted brand behind a financial product that now looks more and more like a property scam and mis-selling. Will the Government and the Minister investigate the matter fully to assess whether victims have been scammed and there is a case for compensation? Will the Minister speak to Rothschild to make a moral case about what the bank may end up defending in courts in Spain, the UK and elsewhere on the flimsy pretext of, “Not me, guv”?

The matter resembles nothing more or less than an equity release scam, and it is not only Rothschild that is linked to it. Other banks, including Scandinavian and British ones, lured pensioners into gambling away their lifetime savings and homes on two enticing but ultimately flawed pretexts: first, that by investing in a loan secured against a mortgage on a property in Spain, they would obtain a small income additional to their often limited pension in retirement; and, secondly, that by registering a mortgage on that property, they could be helped in eliminating inheritance taxes for their children. Imagine an elderly couple who have worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes and contributed to society and the community—a professional couple who have planned for their retirement carefully, one of whom has suffered significant health problems in later life. They have invested all their wealth and savings in one retirement property in Spain. They do not have other assets or sources of wealth, and they are offered an enticing double bonus of releasing equity and gaining inheritance tax advantages regarding their retirement property in Spain.

Such an enticing offer perhaps sounds too good to be true, and it certainly was for my constituents, a retired couple whose lives I have just described in summary. When that offer is packaged and presented as being backed by such an eminent and reputable financial institution as Rothschild, that is the icing on the cake. They might have thought twice if they were dealing with some fly-by-night operator, but Rothschild? Even someone unfamiliar with the financial world would recognise that name and see it as conferring some prestige and status on any product being offered.

Rothschild is, as its website and company information proudly proclaim, one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory groups, employing around 2,800 people in 40 countries around the world. This worldwide brand proudly states that its 200-year-old reputation is based on clear values of excellence, teamwork, focus on the client, the long-term interest of the client and—at the top of the list—putting the client first. Rothschild explains:

“We provide outstanding client service, with the highest standards of professional integrity to build enduring relationships of trust and confidence.”

I say to Rothschild: “You have badly deviated from your core values, badly served your brand and reputation, and badly served people who regarded themselves as your clients and not the clients of some intermediaries, as you claim. They are now facing penury after investing in products in which your name—Rothschild—your integrity and your values were used as a key selling point.” To walk away from those hundreds of citizens and to deny not only liability, but any assistance, and to force them through costly court actions in Spain or elsewhere, is a stain on Rothschild’s history. The Rothschild family motto “Concordia, Integritas, Industria”—harmony, integrity, industry—seems somewhat absurd when my constituents and others face personal ruin.

As I mentioned earlier, Rothschild is not alone in the firing line. Danske Bank, Sydbank, Nykredit and others are not only in the firing line over this, but in the dock, with some people in custody. A warrant was issued in Spain by the general directorate of police and the Guardia Civil in Madrid on 26 November for two Rothschild employees, Mark Coutanche and Stephen Dewsnip, who are directors, to appear in court to face criminal charges. The warrant relates to accusations that N. M. Rothschild & Sons sold mortgages to Spanish-based pensioners as a tool, albeit a legal one, to defraud the Spanish tax office and deliberately concealed crucial data that would prove that its equity release product was impractical as an investment.

Let us look at the evidence for the case against Rothschild and others. They completely, unarguably and incontrovertibly provided support, training, the terms of business for intermediaries selling the inappropriate products, supportive promotion through glossy brochures and websites, and much more. For Rothschild to say that it was not directly involved and that the product was sold through intermediaries, which distances it from the situation, is akin to a parent saying to their child, “It’s not my fault that the Christmas presents are broken or cruddy, it’s Santa’s—sue him!”, or to a retailer blaming its supply chain for worker exploitation in Bangladesh when it is selling T-shirts for £2, or for horse meat in its beef lasagne. It is not good enough. We all know who should take responsibility.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate, Mr Turner; we had a little vote at the 1922 committee. When we look at the terrible tragedy that has happened, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only safe way for people to take forward equity release is to use firms that are part of the Equity Release Council, which holds them to a high standard? In saying that I should declare an interest, because I hold an unremunerated position on the advisory board of the UK Equity Release Council.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to guide people towards good and assured equity release products. Not all such products are bad and nor are all sellers. It is a question of how the products are used and at whom they are targeted—I will come to that in a moment.

How can companies such as Rothschild choose to distance themselves from this matter when the people affected are UK citizens who were sold to by a Rothschild subsidiary based in Guernsey—Rothschild, of course, was established in England two or more centuries ago? It is not good enough for Rothschild to say that the situation is nothing to do with it and that people should take the matter up in the Spanish courts. The hon. Lady’s advice, however, is very good.

We all know who should take responsibility. As we say at home, “Man up.” Rothschild backed these products to the hilt, resourcing and designing them. It lent its name and support to the selling of them. It was party to the flogging of unfit products to unsuitable clients who did not suspect that they were on the back-end of a dodgy scam that was fit for Trotters Independent Traders. At least we could laugh along with Del Boy and Rodney; there is no laughter when my constituents and many others face poverty and hardship in their retirement.

Rothschild and its compliance and legal teams have been robust in disputing the allegations and, indeed, have threatened legal sanctions against those who repeat them. The allegations are very sensitive. When I first raised the matter on the Floor of the House, I received a letter offering a meeting and suggesting that the facts, as explained to me, were “both incomplete and inaccurate”. The letter went on:

“Your statement that Rothschild gave advice and support is factually incorrect.”

I dispute that, as evidenced by my earlier comments and the further remarks to follow.

This debate has obviously caused Rothschild some consternation, as it contacted me yet again to stress that there were “serious factual inaccuracies”. It wrote:

“We trust you understand the importance to us that the position is fairly and accurately portrayed in Parliament.”

Here then is the truth, put fairly and accurately.

Although Rothschild has not provided me with wholly precise figures, it has advised me that just short of 130 loans were provided, of which fewer than 50 were loans to Spanish non-tax resident individuals, some of whom live in the UK. Parliament will note that the reason why Rothschild has those statistics is because a Rothschild product underpins the scam. Let us remember that it disputes that the situation has anything to do with it—it is those pesky intermediaries and savings people. As the now infamous CreditSelect series 4 product is a Rothschild product, I am sure that after this debate Rothschild will be able to provide me and Parliament with the precise figures on the number of loans and the number of people affected who are in this country, along with what the total and the average level of loan debt are for UK citizens, as well as the age profile of those UK citizens. It is a Rothschild product, after all—it is not delivered by Santa or anybody else.

I am fortunate to have seen—indeed, I have it with me—a copy of the presentation pack used back in 2006 to support the sale of these Rothschild products and to train and inform the intermediaries who went on to sell them to unsuspecting victims. It is prominently marked as

“not for circulation to the public”.

Its title is “Rothschild Channel Islands: CreditSelect Series 4 presentation”, and it is by none other than “Stephen Dewsnip, Director”, who as I mentioned earlier has been served a warrant to face charges in Spain.

The first slide—this is not for public consumption, remember—tells aspiring intermediaries and salesmen who want to flog this dodgy deal that Rothschild Channel Islands is the

“premier choice for offshore private banking services”.

That would have been reassuring for the intermediaries, who no doubt repeated the bold claim to future victims.

After detailing the design and extensive back-up for the CreditSelect series 4 product, the presentation lists by name, with phone numbers and e-mail addresses, five Rothschild contacts, including Dewsnip and Coutanche —he was also mentioned in connection with warrants in Spain—who were the guys behind the package. “Contact them,” it says. “You won’t be on your own as intermediaries. Look at this back-up provided directly by N.M. Rothschild and their senior people. They are, after all, the premier choice for offshore banking services.”

The presentation goes on to explain how the initial launch of the product in Spain will be followed by its roll-out in Portugal, France, the UK and so on—how exciting! It explains how Rothschild will instruct the valuer, check the application pack, clarify the details with an independent financial adviser and prepare the credit papers for the Rothschild credit committee, and how the lawyers would be instructed to prepare the legal documents. It goes on to explain the benefits, saying that there is no upper age limit, which is very handy for retired folk, and that no proof of income is required. Of course not; it is the property as collateral, stupid. There is no need to worry if those people are retired pensioners and the property is the only thing they have—if it is their life savings and entire worldly wealth invested in bricks and mortar.

A slide labelled “Key Features” explains that these products are

“Well-structured loan and investment products from excellent brand names”,

and that clients are

“not exposed to unnecessary risks due to Rothschild’s conservative approach”—

there is that Rothschild name being used again as back-up.

Do we really think that the salesmen—the intermediaries —did not go big on the Rothschild name when they were flogging the product? Every single victim says that Rothschild was central to the sales pitch. It was made clear that Rothschild was behind the scheme and was backing the scheme—that it was the scheme. “No worries,” said the intermediaries whom Rothschild were training and supporting to sell CreditSelect series 4.

The main client benefits are listed in the document as an initial cash-back facility, liquidity providing a loan for investment, the prospect of long-term capital growth and tax planning opportunities. That is irresistible for the sales guys and for vulnerable victims, too.

In case anyone was in any doubt about how good the product was and who was backing it, the presentation told us that it was:

“A responsible, competitively priced asset-backed lending facility from a prestigious bank available to Spanish residential property owning clients.”

A “prestigious bank”: Rothschild Channel Islands, established in 1967 in Guernsey; a subsidiary of the Rothschild Group, established in England in 1798 and owned by the Rothschild family, whose motto is “Concordia, Integritas, Industria”, or harmony, integrity, industry. How incongruous that word “integrity” seems in the family motto in light of the action towards my constituents and others.

In case the role of Rothschild in this debacle is not yet clearly established, let me again go back to 2006 when Rothschild was saying this to promote the scheme:

“Our innovative product CreditSelect is available throughout a network of financial advisers around the world, thus giving clients straightforward access to credit”

for a wide “range of purposes”. It also said:

“To help support those professional financial advisory firms with whom we have agreed terms of business for the availability of CreditSelect, we have a website dedicated to assisting the promotion and delivery of the service...This website is regularly updated to ensure that our introducers have round the clock access to all facility documents for downloading and printing…clients brochures, the latest Funds List”.

Fast-forward to 2012 and Rothschild, faced by potential actions in Spain and elsewhere, has changed its tune. It is now saying to complainants:

“Hamiltons”—

that is one of the independent advisers, but you can insert any number of other financial advisers at your discretion, Mr Turner—

“were your financial adviser and acted as your agent in relation to your application for a CreditSelect loan facility, we are not able to accept responsibility for any advice that may have been given to you by Hamiltons”,

or any other assorted intermediaries. That is dissembling and distancing worthy of Pontius Pilate, and it is just as distasteful.

There are all sorts of scams and mis-selling, big and small: from the cowboy builder who sells someone roof repairs that they do not need, to payment protection insurance and mortgage mis-selling. There are real issues of mis-selling, but there are also fundamental issues of trust and integrity. We have seen a practice that can be described as predatory lending. Intermediaries might have laid a trap, but the trap was built by Rothschild. Unless Rothschild and others that are implicated in the scandal step up to the mark and accept their responsibility, this will become the latest chapter of banks and financial houses despoiling the very beds they lie in.

Rothschild’s family empire is estimated to be worth $300 billion to $400 billion. My elderly retired constituents’ net worth was tied up in the property in Spain that the Rothschild group ended up taking. Will the Minister examine the scandal and force Rothschild and the other banks involved to face their responsibility for impoverishing pensioners and to make good their losses? Rothschild can afford to do so; its reputation cannot afford not to. Rothschild has offered to meet me. I will be happy to do so on the clear understanding that I am looking for justice for my constituents and others, not excuses and legal defence.

17:26

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Turner. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that I have listened very carefully.

Some of us will have constituents affected by these products who now face an uncertain financial future instead of the comfortable retirement they thought they had earned. As the hon. Gentleman said, the equity release products in question were sold to some UK pensioners resident in Spain. It seems that they were sold by independent financial advisers operating in Spain who suggested that they release equity from their houses and invest the loan in a fund, often claiming that that would have inheritance tax benefits. The products were then provided by a variety of banks, mainly based in Scandinavia, but including Rothschild bank.

With the onset of the financial crisis, those investments did not perform, so many of the investors breached the terms of the loan they were given. That has left many expats in Spain, including those from the UK, with significant financial losses. Some of the banks involved, many of which were facing their own financial difficulties, have sought to repossess the properties on which the loans were secured. That has left some pensioners facing not only large losses, but the threat of repossession, which is a stark contrast with the comfortable retirement they had planned.

Of course, I am sympathetic to the difficulties that these people are facing. Many of them have lost a great deal, but I am afraid that the Government’s ability to act in this case is limited. The products were not sold in the UK or by UK companies and the loans were not secured against properties located in this country, so the UK authorities do not have any jurisdiction over that activity.

What I have said will be frustrating for the individuals involved, but the same rules allow our own regulators to protect our domestic consumers from foreign banks operating here in the UK. I realise that some banks in Europe were involved in providing the products sold by independent financial advisers in Spain. The hon. Gentleman highlighted Rothschild bank specifically. It has strong historic connections with the UK.

I have looked into the matter further, and I understand that Rothschild sold around 130 of the products between 2005 and 2008. However, that activity was carried out by its Guernsey-based entity and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Channel Islands do not come under the jurisdiction of the UK Government or UK regulators. The Guernsey regulator may have some jurisdiction over the design and distribution of the product, but that is not for the UK authorities to establish. I understand that some of those who have lost out have taken the case up with the Spanish authorities, and that may be an appropriate option for them.

I am sorry to report that the UK Government have limited influence over this case. I understand that Rothschild has provided affected customers with some flexibility. For example, it is my understanding that it is not repossessing the properties of those that have been affected. That, of course, is welcome. As I said, the UK authorities do not have any jurisdiction over this activity. However, I appreciate that Rothschild has major operations in the UK, so I am happy to write to it to pass on some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I will also raise the matter with my counterparts in Spain and Guernsey to bring it to their attention. I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituents if he would find that useful.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the UK ambassador to Spain wrote to the Spanish regulator about this issue in 2012. Following that exchange, the Foreign Office published advice for people considering taking out equity release products in Spain. It highlighted the importance of checking that the company offering the mortgage is registered with the Spanish financial regulator, known as the CNMV. The publication explains that consumers unhappy with the product should first complain to the company responsible and that, if they are still dissatisfied, they can complain to the Spanish financial regulator.

In a broader context, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) gave sensible advice for people who are thinking of taking out similar equity release products in the UK.

In summary, I fully understand and support the hon. Gentleman’s concerns for his constituents affected by these products.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the Minister for a very positive, full and helpful response. He may not be able to answer this question now, but does he think that there is any scope within European legislation or elsewhere to avoid this situation happening in the future? In this situation, a UK-based company that has a subsidiary in Guernsey operates in Spain, and people assume that it is applying the same ethical and moral standards elsewhere. Let us lift the debate above Rothschild for a moment. Any company doing what has been described could, within the European Union, be brought to book in one way or the other. Does the Minister think that there is something there that we should be exploring?

[Sajid Javid]

When I first looked into the issue, I thought about that. Unfortunately, I do not think that there is such an avenue through European Union institutions. I am happy to explore the matter further; perhaps when we meet, I can give the hon. Gentleman more information. He may be interested to know that there is currently a mortgage market directive. It is in its final stages in the European Union, but I think that I am right in saying that it does not include equity release products. Obviously, it would not have helped the hon. Gentleman’s constituents anyway; it is for the future.

I am happy to raise the issue with people in the way I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and I thank him again for bringing up this case. I will be happy to report back to him.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The few minutes remaining provide an opportunity to get more issues on the record. The Minister may be interested in responding to some other people who have written to me subsequently, when they learned of the debate. One of them wrote:

“When my wife and I met Mr Dewsnip”—

who came up earlier in the debate—

“at one of his public presentations and had a private chat with him after the main event, he most certainly did advise us as to the suitability of the investment fund and assured us that Rothschild would be working on a daily basis with the fund managers to ensure that it was meeting expectations and performing as expected.”

I could cite other examples that imply an intimate, daily, minute-by-minute relationship, but I have yet to discover whether that also means that Rothschild or anyone who worked for Rothschild was financially benefiting from it. That would be interesting and it may figure in a subsequent meeting that I have with Rothschild.

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is right to ask such questions and to raise them in any meeting that he may have with Rothschild and with the relevant regulators for the entities that we have discussed today. I will report back to the hon. Gentleman in due course. I thank him again for raising this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

17:34

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statement

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Written Statements

Wednesday 22 January 2014

Equitable Life Payment Scheme

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

As of 31 December 2013 the Equitable Life payment scheme has made payments totalling £816 million to 717,600 policyholders. The scheme has also published a further progress report, which can be found at: http://equitablelifepaymentscheme.independent.gov.uk/

Over the coming months the scheme will continue to make payments and any policyholders who have not been contacted should call the scheme directly on 0300 0200 150 to check their eligibility for a payment. To support this, the scheme has implemented a new system in their call centre which allows most policyholders to verify their identity on the telephone and thus receive any payment due more quickly, usually within two weeks.

The scheme remains committed to locating as many of the remaining policyholders as possible before it closes in 2015. In addition to the recent advertising campaign which resulted in around 20,000 people calling the scheme, the scheme has also identified enhanced methods of policyholder tracing. It is anticipated that these new approaches will result in thousands more policyholders who have not already identified themselves to the scheme being paid.