House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
1. What recent steps he has taken to address human rights abuses in North Korea.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
4. What steps he plans to take in support of the recent report of the United Nations commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I welcome the recent United Nations report, which exposes shocking human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and I urge the DPRK authorities to respond to its contents. The United Kingdom is actively supporting a strong UN Human Rights Council resolution on the DPRK. Yesterday I was in Geneva, working to deliver a resolution that makes it clear that there can be no impunity for human rights violators.
Andrew Selous
As the United Nations has found North Korea to be committing crimes against humanity on a scale unparalleled in the modern world, will the Government refer those responsible to the International Criminal Court and lobby the BBC to broadcast the World Service into North Korea, given the increase in demand for the so-called immoral devices of small radios, the ban on which eased last month? We can no longer say we do not know—it is time to act.
Mr Swire
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend’s last comment. On the International Criminal Court, in principle it could be an appropriate forum, although the DPRK has not signed up to it. We strongly agree that there should be no impunity for crimes of this sort, so we need to look at the most effective way of holding the DPRK to account.
On the BBC, my hon. Friend will know that I have been in correspondence with and have attended the all-party group on North Korea to discuss the issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the noble Lord Alton. We have approached the BBC and are waiting for its detailed response. I must stress, however, that the BBC World Service is operationally, managerially and editorially independent.
Diana Johnson
Does the Minister think that the UN Security Council will agree to a referral to the International Criminal Court, and have there been any discussions about possible targeted sanctions against those responsible for crimes against humanity?
Mr Swire
I remind the hon. Lady that I was in Geneva yesterday for the opening day of the UN Human Rights Council. The commission will formally present its report on 17 March, so these are very early days. The annual resolution led by the European Union and Japan will then be taken at the end of the Human Rights Council and we will work with colleagues there to ensure that we have the best possible mechanism to hold the DPRK to account. Incidentally, I believe that when the curtain is finally lifted on that country, we will see evidence of human rights violations that surpass anything we have seen in any other country in the past 50 years.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the international community’s response to human rights violations in North Korea has been wholly inadequate to date and that we must now challenge that country with the same emphasis placed on security issues?
Mr Swire
I do and I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work she has been doing. She has arranged a briefing by Open Doors this afternoon—I have asked officials to attend it—to highlight the plight of Christians in the DPRK. I also commend—this is not a plug—a book I have just read by the noble Lord Alton called “Building Bridges”, which is the most shocking account of what has been going on in that country.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
20. What conversations are the UK Government having with China, specifically about the report’s recommendations on the forced repatriation of North Koreans, which is having a devastating impact on Christians who defect to China?
Mr Swire
We have had discussions with our Chinese opposite numbers on refoulement—that is, the repatriation of those who have escaped from DPRK to China. We had a UK-China strategic dialogue last week and I raised the issue with my opposite number, as did my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with his opposite number.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
2. What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Ukraine.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
5. What reports he has received on recent developments in Ukraine.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
6. What discussions he has had with the Government of Ukraine on the political situation in that country.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
7. What assessment he has made of the latest political developments in Ukraine.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
15. What reports he has received on recent developments in Ukraine.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I will make a statement shortly and I visited Ukraine yesterday. The United Kingdom is gravely concerned by the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer and may I pay tribute to him for his extensive efforts during this crisis? Many of us share his concern about this rapidly developing situation. Does he agree that any allegations made by Russia that its minority in Ukraine is in danger would be best addressed through diplomatic means rather than by any use of force?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a very important point. Allegations have been made about threats to the Russian-speaking minority in Ukraine. I must say that I have not seen any evidence—no evidence has been presented of those threats—and I received very strong assurances from the Ukrainian authorities yesterday that they would not make any such threats. In any case, as he says, such matters should be resolved peacefully, and institutions such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe are always ready to assist with such matters.
Kevin Brennan
As a schoolboy, I took the bus from Cwmbran to Pontypool via the village of Sebastopol, a reminder of how long the Crimea has been of significance in our history. Will the Foreign Secretary ask all Ministers to refrain from any superficial blame games for party political purposes, which are not in Britain’s interest, and to work with the Opposition to develop a united diplomatic response from Britain in the face of Russian aggression?
Mr Hague
I hope that when I present my statement to the House later we will see strong unity on many aspects of this crisis. It is of course the Government’s responsibility to frame this country’s policy and the Opposition’s job to hold us to account for that, as the shadow Foreign Secretary often reminds me. I hope that there will be very strong unity on the key aspects and key principles involved in this crisis. We must debate coolly and calmly, across all parties, the measures we should take in response to it.
Mr Hague
Former President Yanukovych left his post and then left the country, and the decisions on replacing him with an acting President were made by the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, by the very large majorities required under the constitution, including with the support of members of former President Yanukovych’s party, the Party of Regions, so it is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities.
On disturbances in Donetsk and other areas of eastern Ukraine, there have been reports of some such disturbances, but it is not clear whether they have been inspired from outside Ukraine.
Damian Collins
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that without a swift and peaceful resolution to the Crimean crisis, the Government will consider imposing economic sanctions on Russia? Have he and the Government conducted a review of the options at their disposal to apply such economic pressure?
Mr Hague
Our options are open on that. The European Union Foreign Affairs Council yesterday agreed to look at targeted measures. Our options are open on the further action that we can take, and which we will take in conjunction with our allies and partners, because that will make any such action more effective, when we are able to consider developments over the coming hours and days.
Helen Goodman
At this time of crisis, it is clear that the Foreign Secretary must have no conflicts of interest. Unlike the Swiss and the Austrian Governments, this Government have not frozen the assets of members of the Yanukovych regime. Human rights activists in Ukraine have contacted me to complain that the Tories have taken money from members of that regime in the past. Does the Foreign Secretary want take to this opportunity to clear up that matter?
Mr Hague
I find the hon. Lady’s question ridiculous in the extreme, and I almost do not know where to begin to ridicule it. Certainly, Her Majesty’s Government would not be influenced by any such matters. I discussed with the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday our eagerness to assist with the return of stolen assets and their recovery for Ukraine. For the first time, the Ukrainian Government yesterday gave us a list of those involved; they had not done so previously. I have agreed with the Prime Minister of Ukraine to send a team urgently to Ukraine to advise the Ukrainians on the information they need to provide to us for us to be able to act on it. I think she can now see how utterly baseless her question was.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
May I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his stamina? Does he agree that it is difficult to take the protestations of President Putin seriously in the light of the incident recently reported of Russian soldiers firing warning shots over the heads of Ukrainian soldiers seeking to go about their lawful business and then threatening to shoot them in the legs if they did not desist? Does he agree that that merely emphasises the fragility of the present circumstances, particularly the risk that either provocation or miscalculation could lead to a conflagration?
Mr Hague
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. It continues to be a serious risk that deliberate provocation, in particular, could give rise to a dangerous incident. I will say in my statement how much I commend the Ukrainian authorities for refusing to rise to provocation. I urged them yesterday, when I was in Kiev, to maintain that posture through all circumstances and at all times. I believe that they are determined to do so.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
May I, perhaps to his surprise, commend the Foreign Secretary for maintaining a cool head in this situation? Clearly, there is tremendous provocation from President Putin. However, in the end, this situation will be resolved diplomatically or it will not be resolved, with terrible costs to the whole world. In that context, will he say now or later what his view is on Ukraine’s ability to have a free trade agreement with Europe, as well as a free trade agreement with Russia? Will that not be part of a diplomatic future?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is important that we never describe the strategic context for Ukraine as a zero sum game. We welcome the idea of closer links between Ukraine and the European Union. We have supported the association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. We believe that those agreements would benefit the economy and people of Ukraine, and the economy and people of Russia. We absolutely recognise that Russia has important and legitimate interests in Ukraine. That, however, is not a justification for the armed violation of the sovereignty and independence of the country.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
19. Russia’s actions in Ukraine represent the ramping up of a strategy of pursuing self-interested, unbridled, robust and determined actions. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the House that he will seek unification in Europe’s approach to finding a solution, with a focus on acting together in a robust and meaningful way?
Mr Hague
We will do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday while I was in Kiev. There will be a meeting of the European Council—the Heads of Government of the European Union—on Thursday to discuss these matters, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will attend. Yesterday evening, he telephoned President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel to co-ordinate our approach. I therefore can assure my hon. Friend that we will play a leading role in a united European approach.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I have stated previously my support for the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to this crisis, and I repeat that today. However, yesterday in Downing street, there was a very serious blunder at a very serious time, with Government briefing documents mistakenly entering the public domain. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the impact of that blunder risks being much more than ministerial embarrassment, and that it risks compromising the UK’s influence with Russia and our key allies at what remains a crucial and, indeed, dangerous time?
Mr Hague
Any such photographing of documents or making documents available for photographing is absolutely regrettable and should not happen. I hope that all officials will ensure that it does not happen in future. Nevertheless, it must be seen in perspective. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it has those implications. I want to make it absolutely clear that anything that is written in one document that is being carried by one official is not necessarily any guide to the decisions that will be made by Her Majesty’s Government. Our options remain very much open on this subject.
Mr Alexander
I find the Foreign Secretary’s words reassuring, in part. However, let us pursue the implications of what was revealed by the document. Does he accept that, given the gravity of the moment, if every country were to refuse to countenance any economic or diplomatic action that would affect its bilateral standing with Russia, the cumulative effect would be damaging not just for that individual country, but for regional stability and international order?
Mr Hague
Yes, very much. I absolutely accept that, which is why I repeat that anything photographed, or a partial account of a document from one photograph, should certainly not be taken as a guide to the views of the Foreign Secretary, and not necessarily as a guide to the decisions that will be made by Her Majesty’s Government. Our options remain open, and I agree with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am sure the Foreign Secretary will agree it is important that the west, as far as is possible, speak with one voice regarding this aggression. Is he therefore concerned that, at least modestly, a range of views have been expressed by different capitals, which could weaken—or be seen to weaken—the west’s resolve in responding to this crisis?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes an important point about unity in the west, and I draw his attention to a number of things that have already been decided on a common basis. For instance, the decision to withdraw from G8 preparations this week, which we will keep under review, is by all G7 nations, from the United States to Japan, Canada, the UK and the other European participants in the G8. I believe we are acting in a united fashion, and it will be very important to continue to do so in the days ahead.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Last week, when I asked a question about British taxpayers in an austerity-riddled Britain having to hand over money to Ukraine, the Foreign Secretary told the House from the Dispatch Box that the only money would come from the International Monetary Fund. Does he still stand by that guarantee, or does he want to amend it?
Mr Hague
I was explaining to the hon. Gentleman that the money that will come through the IMF is not out of the pockets of British taxpayers and into the pockets of anyone in Ukraine. Since then, given the situation, I announced to the Ukrainian Government yesterday that we will assist them with know-how—[Interruption.] Which is money. That is a new announcement. It is, of course, small in the scheme of Ukraine’s entire economy, but we will assist it with debt management, financial management, and all the things that were needed in this country after the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported left office. Ukraine needs that, and it is in our national interest to provide it.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
3. What reports he has received on the progress that has been made on resettling detainees held in Camp Liberty.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has informed us that as of 20 February, 327 residents from a total of approximately 3,200 have been relocated outside Iraq thus far.
Mike Freer
I thank the Minister for that answer, but in 2013 there were at least four missile attacks that were likely to have been the result of actions by Iraqi or Iranian militia. What can we do to improve security while the resettlement process continues?
Hugh Robertson
The Foreign Secretary raised that specific issue when he met Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari at the end of November—a meeting I attended. We have repeatedly supported the United Nations in its calls for more to be done to protect the residents, and we will continue to remind the Government of Iraq, as a sovereign Government, that they are wholly and totally responsible for the security of the camp.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
There are clearly fears over the security of Camp Liberty because of what has happened previously, which has just been mentioned. Is there anything more we can do to ensure the security of those people inside the camp?
Hugh Robertson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and there continue to be worries about the security of the camp. We must set those in the context of security worries across Iraq at the moment. More than 700 people were reportedly killed by terrorist violence in January, and it is a serious situation across the country. We will continue to remind the Government of that country of their responsibilities, and do all we can to ensure the security of the camp.
Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)
8. What progress has been made on the establishment of an international investigation into alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan civil war.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has reported that Sri Lanka has failed to ensure independent and credible investigations into past violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. She recommends establishing an independent international inquiry, and as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) made clear yesterday at the Human Rights Council, the UK fully supports that view.
Sir Andrew Stunell
I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. I am sure he understands the deep concern on both sides of the House and elsewhere about the continuing violations. Will he assure the House that the Government will work with other Commonwealth countries to put pressure on the Sri Lankan Government to desist from their harassment of those who dissent, and to ensure that the international inquiry takes place?
Mr Hague
Yes, those are points that the Prime Minister and I, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), made forcefully when we were in Sri Lanka at the time of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last November. We are pursuing the issue actively at the Human Rights Council to secure an international inquiry of the type recommended by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I expect there will be vigorous debates at the Human Rights Council over the next few weeks, but we will certainly stick up for the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) has put forward.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Given the intimidation and harassment being experienced by many human rights defenders, journalists and lawyers in Sri Lanka, what more can the UK and its international partners do to ensure that those who give evidence at any international inquiry are protected?
Mr Hague
This is an important issue indeed, given the intimidation and sometimes the unexplained murder of journalists and human rights defenders in Sri Lanka. That strengthens the case for an international investigation. Of course, we are unable to provide directly protection within another country, including within Sri Lanka, but that strengthens the case for that international investigation. We will use that argument in the call for such an investigation.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am more than well aware of the efforts the UK has made over the years to give Sri Lanka every opportunity to make good the President’s responses on seeking reconciliation and justice through a reasonable examination of the war crimes issue. I welcome the fact that there is a sense that time has run out for those efforts, but how can my right hon. Friend convey to Sri Lanka that it is in its interests to comply with an international inquiry and provide the evidence? If it chooses not to do so, it will make an international inquiry very difficult.
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend has often done a very good job of presenting that case to Sri Lanka. We continue to make that case. As he knows, Sri Lanka has made progress on de-mining and resettlement, but that is not sufficient to address accountability and human rights concerns, or to ensure that there is stability and democracy in future in Sri Lanka. We continue to ask the Sri Lankans to mount their own domestic investigation and inquiry, but in the absence of that, it is important that we press for the international inquiry to which hon. Members have referred.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that Sri Lanka’s failure to address the allegations was fundamentally a question of political will. Was it not incredibly naive of the Prime Minister at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to believe that President Rajapaksa had any intention of conducting his own inquiry? Given the time that has been wasted by setting a March deadline, what has the Prime Minister done to use the UK’s position on the Human Rights Council to push for an international investigation, which he should have pushed for many months ago?
Mr Hague
I think there was a lot of unity in the House on Sri Lanka, but the hon. Lady chooses to try to make it a party political issue. Having witnessed the bilateral meeting between the Prime Minister and President Rajapaksa, I assure her that there was nothing naive about it. The Prime Minister forcefully put the case for Sri Lanka to mount its own inquiry and forcefully made it clear that he would press for an international inquiry if it did not do so. That is what he is doing in his contacts with other Heads of Government around the world. I and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon, are doing the same with other Foreign Ministers. I hope the Opposition will concentrate on supporting that rather than trying to snipe about it.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
9. What recent progress has been made on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership; and if he will make a statement.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
TTIP is this country’s top trade policy priority, worth up to £10 billion a year for the UK. Negotiations are progressing well and our ambition remains to conclude the deal next year.
Nadine Dorries
Does the Minister agree that TTIP provides an ideal opportunity to look at having a US free trade agreement based on sovereign states and not on political integration, as well at as our relationship with Europe?
Mr Lidington
The key advantage of TTIP is that a successful deal would create what would be by far the world’s most important free trade area, and would set global regulatory standards for trade on a transatlantic basis rather than having to wait for other countries to come and set the model for us to follow.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The partnership does indeed offer great potential to Europe and the United States, but as the Minister will know, there are fears that it could lead to a watering down of workers’ rights and environmental and social protection. What are the Government doing to ensure that that does not happen?
Mr Lidington
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that considerable legal and other measures already exist on both sides of the Atlantic to secure proper protection for workers, and those matters are indeed in the minds of negotiators. However, I do not think that we should take our eyes off the enormous prize that a trade deal of this kind would represent in increasing economic growth and mutual trade on both sides of the Atlantic.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who campaign for us to leave the European Union would be turning their backs on a free trade area constituting some 40% of the productive wealth of the world, and that we would be unlikely to negotiate similar terms outside the Union?
Mr Lidington
I think it is true that the opportunity for a trade deal with a market of more than 500 million people in Europe as a whole is more attractive to United States negotiators than a trade deal with any single European country. Moreover, as my hon. Friend says, any member state that left the European Union would, unless alternative arrangements were negotiated, be abandoning the free trade agreements that the Union had negotiated with other countries around the world.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Minister ensure in the negotiations that the multinationals pay their proper tax in this country, notwithstanding some of the things that have happened in the past?
Mr Lidington
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to applaud vigorously the initiative taken by our Prime Minister through the G8 to try to secure an international agreement on a system whereby all multinational companies pay their fair share of tax, but I am also sure he will accept that that can be realised effectively only on a global basis.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
10. What discussions he had during his recent visit to Burma.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
During my second visit to Burma in January, I met Aung San Suu Kyi, key Ministers, the Speaker, and the Commander-in-Chief. I discussed the need for constitutional reform and continued progress in the peace talks, and I raised in strong terms our concerns about human rights and about the situation in Rakhine state. I was also the first British Minister to visit Kachin state since Burma gained independence in 1948. Among other things, I met a group of Kachin world war two veterans, and paid tribute to their exceptional and brave service during the war.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Minister for his response, and pay tribute to you, Mr Speaker: if you had not raised the issue of political prisoners with the General and Ministers during your recent trip, they would not have been released.
May I urge the Minister to press the Burmese Government? There is still concern about the census. Many people have been displaced, Médecins Sans Frontières has been suspended from Rakhine, and there needs to be constitutional reform by 2015 if there are to be free and fair elections.
Mr Swire
We approach this issue in a spirit of agreement, and, in accordance with the pledge that I had given the hon. Lady previously, I was able to raise the issue of political prisoners. I believe that there are still 30 whose cases are disputed.
As for the census, the hon. Lady will be aware that we are providing funds for it, and that it is the first census to take place for a very long time. There are issues surrounding it, but we believe that it is the right course. I believe that our engagement with Burma is on the right lines, but serious issues remain, not least the continuing problems in Rakhine.
Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)
I welcome what the Minister has said, and his engagement with Burma. Of course there are many challenges within the country, but does he not accept that the steps towards peace and democracy deserve our support and wholehearted engagement while the opportunity presents itself?
Mr Swire
Yes, I do. I have been able to discuss the situation with Baroness Amos, the United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, in the last couple of weeks. I also discussed it yesterday in Geneva with António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and last night with Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.
We are all extremely concerned about aspects of what is still going on in Burma, but we believe that, with our support across the board, the Burmese Government need encouragement on the path towards democracy. It was never going to be easy, but we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they deliver on the pledges that they have made.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
On Friday I met representatives of the Karen community who have been settled in Sheffield for some period now. They expressed great concern about Karen people in Burma, despite the peace talks. What is the Foreign Office doing to look at the situation of the many ethnic groups in Burma, not just the Rohingya Muslims, and to ensure there really is peace and that they are given support to integrate properly into society throughout Burma?
Mr Swire
The hon. Lady is right to raise that. We are extremely concerned about allegations of human rights violations and inter-communal violence. We have discussed this right across the board with Burma’s leaders and with Aung San Suu Kyi herself. The census is an important step. Whatever kind of Government then come about in Burma will, to my way of thinking, have to recognise some of the differences in the different parts of that country. Human rights are universal; we cannot pick and choose them, and everyone in that country is entitled to the same protection as everyone else, regardless of their ethnicity.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Knowledge is key in promoting democracy. Does my right hon. Friend therefore welcome the assistance this House is giving in setting up the library in the new Burmese Parliament?
Mr Swire
Yes I do, and you, Mr Speaker, and others at all levels in this place are trying to show best practice. In effect, we are trying to build a democratic country in a country that has not been a democracy. We are trying to embed democratic institutions and that requires a lot of work, and I pay tribute to those right across this House—officials, civil servants, Ministers, Opposition MPs. All of us have a part to play in this, given our long-standing close affinity and history with that country.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
11. What steps his Department is taking to provide protection for British civilian personnel currently working in Afghanistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
Government Departments take the duty of care for our civilian personnel serving in Afghanistan extremely seriously and all civilian personnel are provided with a high level of protection, but for obvious reasons, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, we do not publicly comment on the nature of that protection.
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for his answer. In the light of the recent horrific attacks in Kabul, and, indeed, the risks to British civilians working for peace and development worldwide, can the Minister assure us that the Department will be keeping advice given to civilians under constant review and that proactive communication will continue to be made, particularly with non-governmental organisations, on that matter?
Hugh Robertson
Yes, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The travel advice is reviewed on a regular basis and each time there is an attack or any intelligence. It is cross-checked against what we are doing in other parts of Government and is kept under constant review.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the Afghan elections are approaching. The international security assistance force is drawing down, but the crucial US-Afghan partnership agreement has yet to be signed. Will the Minister update the House on when that important agreement will be finalised?
Hugh Robertson
No, I cannot. We continue to encourage the Afghan Government to sign that agreement for all the reasons my hon. Friend mentions. We believe it is clearly an important part of the future of Afghanistan moving forward, and we will continue to encourage the Afghanistan Government to sign it as soon as possible.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
This Friday morning there will be a meeting to commemorate the life of Alex Petersen, one of the young men who lost their lives in Kabul in January. That highlights the fact that those at risk are not just the civilians who work for the British Government, but the civilians who work for contractors and in other peace-building capacities. Will the Government focus on them as much as on British UK Government personnel?
Hugh Robertson
Absolutely we will, and I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who lost their lives because they were clearly doing a very valuable job, attempting to make the lives of ordinary Afghans better than they are at present. The point of the travel advice is to provide precisely the sort of guidance she seeks. Some 13 foreign nationals were killed in the attack I think she is referring to, and it is a great tribute to them all that young people continue to go to Afghanistan and carry out that work.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Obviously, one significant threat to civilians is bomb attack, which underlines how despicable it was that my constituent Jim McCormick, a convicted fraudster, made £50 million out of selling to the Governments of Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries a completely bogus and useless bomb detector. Would it surprise the right hon. Gentleman to know that those useless detectors are still being used in Iraq and many other countries, and that a company in Romania is now patenting, and presumably will produce, an identical device, which obviously will be equally useless? Will he take measures to inform as many countries as possible of these eventualities, and prevent them from using this device and thereby putting civilians at risk?
Hugh Robertson
I can only say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments entirely. When the Foreign Office was made aware of this issue in 2010, we attempted then to inform everybody of exactly what had happened and what the consequences would be, and we will continue to do that.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
British civilians working for both the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) stressed, non-governmental organisations have played a crucial role in helping the ordinary people of Afghanistan, especially women, to improve their lot and have a better future, which is why they are targeted by the despicable Taliban. So what are the Government doing to ensure their safety, not only now, but especially after the military draw-down?
Hugh Robertson
I suppose the answer to the question of what we are continuing to do now is the British military presence in Afghanistan, the aim of which is to increase security throughout that country. A series of programmes will continue after the draw-down, particularly the training of the Afghan military and police, and the Government will do all they can. I echo the comments the right hon. Gentleman made about the contribution made by so many people in the voluntary sector.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
12. What reports he has received on the outcomes of the London conference on the illegal wildlife trade 2014.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
More than 40 nations attended the illegal wildlife trade conference and vowed to help save iconic species from the brink of extinction. The London declaration contains commitments for practical steps to end the illegal trade in rhino horn, tiger parts and elephant tusks, which fuels criminal activity. Botswana will host the next conference.
Mr Hague
I very much hope so. In particular, the elephant protection plan, which was endorsed during the conference by five key African states, now needs to be implemented in those states, and funded by other states and by the private sector. If that happens, it can become a game-changing agreement on preserving the African elephant. I certainly hope that major progress will be made on that before we get to Botswana in a year’s time.
Mr Speaker
This is an extremely important matter of much interest to a great many of our constituents, and if the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) or other Members wanted an Adjournment debate on it, they might find themselves successful.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
13. What assessment he has made of the prospects for successful peace talks on Syria; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
The Syria crisis is worsening by the day, with no sign of the Assad regime having any willingness to negotiate the political transition demanded by the UN Security Council. The second round of Geneva II negotiations ended on 15 February without agreement. Those supporting the regime, including Russia and Iran, need to do far more to press it to reach a political settlement.
Andrew Bridgen
The war in Syria is a tragedy for its people, who have seen their lives, families and homes torn apart, and for the region, which has seen millions of refugees displaced to neighbouring countries. What steps are this Government taking to alleviate the tragedy, promote regional stability and do all they can to prevent a contagion of this crisis?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description. I probably cannot describe all those things in one answer to a question, but in our efforts to alleviate the crisis UK aid is now providing: food for more than 210,000 people a month; water for 1.4 million people; and cooking sets and blankets for 300,000 people. So he can see the scale of the assistance that is being delivered. Tomorrow, I will attend the International Support Group for Lebanon meeting in Paris, where we will be working with other nations on providing the necessary assistance to help stabilise Lebanon, too.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I realise that relations with Russia are rather difficult at the moment, but will the Foreign Secretary renew his efforts to talk to Iran and Russia to bring about a renewal of Geneva II, a ceasefire and then some kind of political solution? The crisis in Syria cannot be ignored just because of events that are happening elsewhere.
Mr Hague
Yes is the basic answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. I assure him that although Ukraine occupies a great deal of attention, all our work and the pace of our work on Syria will be maintained. We are suggesting to Russia and others that there should be new work and meetings among the permanent five members of the Security Council to try again to make a diplomatic breakthrough on Syria—I cannot hold out any prospect of that at the moment—and of course we will hold discussions with Iran, so the answer to his question is yes.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on winning the 2014 Clinton prize for women, peace and security for his leadership on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Given the widespread violence against women and girls in Syria, what steps is he taking to ensure that women are properly represented and properly heard as he attempts to renew Geneva II?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have advocated the inclusion of women to a greater extent in the peace talks on Syria. A women’s action group was formed in parallel with the Geneva II negotiations, and I went to meet its members in Geneva and have invited them to visit the UK. I constantly urge the UN, including the UN Special Envoy, to ensure that women’s representatives are included in future negotiations. I am pleased that the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces ensured that women were represented in its delegation.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Recent suicide attacks in Lebanon have shown the intense danger of the Syrian conflict expanding beyond the borders of Syria. After the end of the Geneva talks last month, what efforts is the Foreign Secretary making to discuss with the UN a process to bring the parties back to Geneva and to begin the process of negotiation that is so desperately needed?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the dangers in Lebanon. As I have said, we shall hold the international support group for Lebanon, which I shall attend, tomorrow in Paris. He is also right to emphasise the importance of bringing the parties back to the table. For that to happen, the Assad regime has to be ready to discuss the creation of a transitional governing body. The offer that Lakhdar Brahimi made to both sides when the talks last ended was that they would discuss terrorism, as the regime describes it, and a transitional governing body, as the Opposition wanted, in parallel. The regime refused to do that, but it needs to become ready to do that for the talks to get going again.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
14. What recent discussions he has had with the Government of Pakistan on the persecution of Christians and other religious minorities in that country. We remain deeply concerned about the persecution faced by Christians and other religious minorities and continue to raise that with the authorities in Pakistan at the highest level. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi most recently raised the matter with the Pakistani Prime Minister during her visit last October.
Alex Cunningham
Many of my constituents have written to me about the persecution of Christians across the world and want British Government action. The Minister appears to recognise the sectarian bias, which is a significant problem in Pakistan. What talks has the Minister had with the Pakistani authorities to assist them in protecting all religious minorities?
Mark Simmonds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. It is something that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes extremely seriously across the world. It is vital that Pakistan guarantee the rights of all its citizens regardless of faith and ethnicity. The UK Government are extremely active and raise issues of religious freedom on a regular basis. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met faith leaders in Lahore last year, and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi has had frank discussions not just with the Prime Minister but with the national security adviser of Pakistan and the then Minister for National Harmony. We did so both on a bilateral and multilateral basis.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Yesterday I visited Ukraine, and tomorrow I will attend the international support group for Lebanon in Paris.
Neil Carmichael
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer.
With the Antarctic Act 2013 now successfully passed, what reassurance can Ministers give on encouraging other signatory states to the treaty to ensure that they, too, put into their domestic law measures to protect the Antarctic?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
My hon. Friend deserves huge congratulations on successfully piloting his private Member’s Bill through Parliament and the significant positive contribution that the Antarctic Act 2013 will make. Other countries need to ratify the treaty’s provisions quickly so that they can come into effect. I know that through his contacts he is pushing Germany and the United States, and I can inform the House that my officials are in regular contact with their counterparts and will use the Antarctic treaty meeting in April to continue to push other countries to ratify.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given Chancellor Merkel’s confirmation that she does not support a fundamental reform of the European Union’s architecture, will the Minister for Europe update the House on when we may expect some clarity from the Prime Minister about what powers he wants repatriated to the UK?
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I was heartened by Chancellor Merkel’s strong words about her determination to work with the Prime Minister to secure a European Union that is significantly more competitive, more democratic and more flexible than it is today. I wish that, instead of carping all the time, the hon. Gentleman would join us in that great project of reform.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T2. The coalition Government have set great store by encouraging stronger economic, cultural, religious and tourism links with India. With that in mind, there is constant lobbying for the reintroduction of direct flights from London to Gujarat, and especially Ahmedabad. What diplomatic efforts can Ministers launch to assist that campaign and get that much needed reform in place?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
Of course the issue of direct flights between London and Ahmedabad is ultimately a commercial decision for airlines, but India hosts the largest UK diplomatic network in the world and we now have a British trade office there. I visited Gujarat and met the state’s Chief Minister Modi in March 2013, and we would welcome such direct flights because a huge section of the population travels to and does business with that thriving and vibrant part of India.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T5. What impact will our worsening relations with Russia have on our ability and that of our NATO allies to bring military equipment from Afghanistan back home via the overland route through Russia?
Mr Hague
That remains to be seen, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministry of Defence has important arrangements not just Russia but with several central Asian countries, and there are also other routes out of Afghanistan. There has been no impact so far, but we will keep the House informed.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
T3. Next week will mark three years of devastating bloodshed in Syria and one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the preventing sexual violence initiative in ensuring that those who have survived sexual violence receive the comprehensive services that they need not only inside Syria but in the wider region?
Mr Hague
We have started our work on that, but there is much more to do. The team of experts that I formed, who can be deployed anywhere in the world to help local groups and authorities to combat sexual violence, have been deployed to the Syrian border. Of course we have ensured that of those people who will be entitled to come to the United Kingdom, we shall strongly prioritise those who are vulnerable to violence, including the victims of sexual violence. However, we are only scratching the surface of this immense and tragic issue, which we will discuss further at the preventing sexual violence summit that I will host in London in June.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Following the Israeli Prime Minister’s visit to Washington this week, will Ministers give their assessment of the progress of the Kerry talks between Israel and Palestine towards achieving a two-state solution and, especially, regarding illegal settlements?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
There remains, I hope, healthy optimism that something positive will come out of the Kerry process. I think Members on both sides of the House will commend the energy that the United States Secretary of State has brought to the issue. He hopes to agree outline terms by the end of March, and at that stage we will be in a much better position to see how we might take the process forward.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
T4. On Saturday, more than 100 people were injured and, tragically, 29 were killed as a result of the brutal mass stabbing in the Chinese city of Kunming. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the underlying issues, that horrific attack is no solution to the problem? Will he join me in expressing our condolences to the families of those affected?
Mr Swire
I strongly condemn the brutal terrorist attack at Kunming train station on 1 March. My thoughts and sympathies are with the families of the victims and those injured. Our consular team responded immediately to reports of the incident, speaking to local police and hospitals where the victims were taken for treatment. The Yunnan authorities have confirmed that no British nationals were caught up in the attack. We remain in touch with the local authorities and receive regular updates.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T7. One of the main reasons given to this House in 2001 for our involvement in Afghanistan was that 90% of the heroin consumed in Britain came from Afghanistan. Thirteen years later, and after the tragic deaths of 447 of our brave soldiers, 90% of the heroin on the streets of Britain is still coming from Afghanistan, where the heroin crop is at a record level. Helmand is controlled by the Taliban. Can this be described as “mission accomplished”?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is right that the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan remains a very serious problem that has not been defeated, but of course many other things have been achieved in Afghanistan, and he is losing sight of that in his question. Terrorist bases that were operating for al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have been destroyed, the threat to the world from terrorism originating in Afghanistan is now much less than it was in 2001, and the Afghan people have been able to make enormous progress in other ways—so that is only one dimension on which we should measure the operations in Afghanistan.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Touching on the Foreign Secretary’s responsibility for GCHQ, in a speech this morning the Deputy Prime Minister initiated an independent review of the intelligent balance that needs to be struck between digital freedom and national security. Even to a keen supporter of the intelligence services like me, that does not seem unreasonable. Why were Conservative Ministers not willing to support it?
Mr Hague
The Deputy Prime Minister was speaking in his own capacity on that issue. I reiterate what I have said to the House before about the extremely strong system of oversight that we have in this country, with which my hon. Friend is very familiar. Of course, there are issues being looked at now by the Intelligence and Security Committee, and I think it wise for most of us to await the Committee’s report.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
There is obviously an appetite for democracy in Bangladesh. Why do the Government not go further in pressing, as the EU and other countries have, for fresh, free and fair national elections in that country?
Mark Simmonds
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but he needs to recognise that the elections were held in accordance with the Bangladesh constitution. I understand that voters in more than half the constituencies did not have the opportunity to express their will at the ballot box, but the final result of elections in Bangladesh is ultimately a matter for the Bangladeshi people to judge. The United Kingdom will continue to provide support through updating electoral registers and training polling officials.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)
In February 2011, I was on an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Georgia. We went to the border with South Ossetia where, through binoculars, we saw Russian troops and the Russian flag displayed. The Russians had invaded in 2008 and they remain there today. Anyone who believes that doing nothing will remove the Russian troops from Crimea should look at history; it will actually do the reverse.
Mr Hague
Of course I will come on to these issues in a minute, in my statement. My hon. Friend is quite right to point to what has happened in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and, indeed, Transnistria, where Russian troops remain stationed on a permanent or long-term basis. There is every indication that the intentions for Crimea are the same.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
T8. Notwithstanding the Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), the political violence and deaths in Bangladesh are deeply disturbing. How are the Government using their good offices to assist the parties there to restore civil order and create good governance?
Mark Simmonds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the appalling electoral violence in Bangladesh, which we completely condemn. We continue to support the Government structures by updating electoral registers, training polling officials and putting in place new systems for publishing details, particularly as people stand for office. Those improvements will, we hope, create and strengthen the foundations for better future elections.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
What assessment do Ministers make of reports that Iran is stepping up its already considerable military assistance to the Syrian regime?
Hugh Robertson
The simple answer is that those reports are almost certainly credible. One of the most damaging aspects of the conflict in Syria is the help given by both Iran and Hezbollah to the regime forces. That will need to stop before there can be any peace in that country.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
When the Foreign Secretary visited Colombia recently, did he raise the fact that last year 78 human rights defenders, political activists and community leaders were killed—the highest number for a decade? Does that not suggest that the Government’s constant reiteration of the claim that things are getting better in Colombia is not the case and that more needs to be done to protect people engaging in perfectly legitimate political activity?
Mr Hague
Yes, in Colombia two weeks ago I raised those issues with the President and other Ministers, including the increase in the number of deaths of human rights defenders last year, which is very important. Part of the answer is a successful peace process, and the Colombian Government have been right and courageous to embark on that. If successful, it will change the entire environment in Colombia, but more needs to be done in other ways to protect human rights defenders, and that is certainly something we discussed with the Colombian Government.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe agree that although the free trade agreement with the United States is a very good step in the right direction, it is nevertheless very unambitious that the EU spends only 2% of its annual budget on trade, compared with over 40% on subsidising farming?
Mr Lidington
I must say that if the Commission is looking for a way to allocate its priorities better, beefing up its excellent team in the Directorate-General for Trade would be a good way of going about it.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
There has been international condemnation of Putin’s actions as Russian aggression intensifies in Ukraine. However, European leaders seem hampered by the dependence of much of the European Union on Russian oil and gas. What effective action will be taken to stop Putin walking over the will of the people of Ukraine?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government support an independent Crimea if its people vote for that in a referendum, because presumably the Government will support an independent Scotland if its people choose to be independent?
Mr Hague
Here in this House and in the United Kingdom we believe in freedom, democracy and self-determination around the world, but my right hon. Friend will recall that the referendum in Scotland is taking place with the agreement of this House and of the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole. Under the Ukrainian constitution, that would be the proper arrangement in Crimea as well.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Why did the UK refuse to join 146 other states at the recent conference in Mexico on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons?
Hugh Robertson
Because we believe that there are other international forums that are more effective for achieving those aims.
Ukraine
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission I will make a statement on the situation in Ukraine. The House will recall from my statement last Monday that, on Friday 21 February, former President Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine signed an agreement to end months of violence. Shortly afterwards, Mr Yanukovych fled Kiev, the 2004 constitution was restored, early presidential elections were called for 25 May, and an interim Government were appointed.
Last Wednesday, President Putin ordered military exercises involving a stated 38,000 Russian troops near the border with Ukraine. By Friday, unidentified armed men had appeared outside airports and Government buildings in Crimea. On Saturday, President Putin sought and received the approval of the upper House of the Russian Parliament to use Russian armed forces anywhere on the territory of Ukraine, without the consent of the Ukrainian Government, citing a
“threat to the lives of Russian citizens”.
Russian forces in Crimea went on to take control of Ukrainian military sites, including in Belbek, Balaclava and Kerch, and to establish full operational control in Crimea. Helicopters and planes have been deployed. The Russian Government have not ruled out military action in other parts of Ukraine—indeed, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has reported Russian fighters infringing Ukrainian airspace over the Black sea.
Her Majesty’s Government condemn any violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine which contravene Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Helsinki Final Act and the 1997 partition treaty on the status and conditions of the Black sea fleet with Ukraine. Under that agreement, Russia is entitled to station troops and naval personnel on its bases in Crimea, but not to deploy troops outside those bases without the permission of the Ukrainian Government.
Moreover, Russia’s actions are in breach of the Budapest memorandum, signed in 1994. In return for Ukraine’s giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia joined the United Kingdom and the United States in reaffirming its obligation to
“refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”
The Russian Government have argued that there is no legitimate Government in Kiev, but the incumbent Ukrainian President abandoned his post, and the subsequent decisions of the Ukrainian Parliament have been carried by large majorities, required under the constitution—including from members of the former President’s party, the Party of Regions. The suggestion that a President who has fled his country then has any authority whatever to invite the forces of a neighbouring country into that country is baseless.
Russia has also argued that Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine are in danger, but no evidence of that threat has been presented. Furthermore, international diplomatic mechanisms exist to provide assurance on the situations of national minorities, including within the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. These mechanisms, not the breaking of international agreements and the use of armed force, are the way to secure assurances of protection of the rights of minorities.
I commend the Ukrainian Government for responding to this extreme situation with a refusal to be provoked. The Ukrainian armed forces have been placed on full combat readiness, but the Ukrainian Government have affirmed that they will not use force, and I have urged them to maintain this position. However, there is clearly a grave risk of escalation or miscalculation and a threat to hard-won peace and security in Europe.
This Government have been in constant contact with the Government of Ukraine, with the United States, with our partners in the European Union and with our allies in NATO and the G7—and, indeed, with the Russian Government themselves. Our objectives are, first, to avoid any further military escalation, and instead to see Russia return its forces to their bases and respect Ukrainian sovereignty; secondly, for any concerns about Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine to be addressed by means of negotiations, not force; and thirdly, for the international community to provide Ukraine with urgent economic assistance, provided that it is ready to carry out vital reforms. I will briefly take each of these areas in turn.
First, we and our allies have condemned Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and warned against any further escalation. The Prime Minister has spoken twice to President Obama, and I have been in daily contact with my counterparts in the European Union, NATO and the G7. We have made firm representations to Russia. The Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on Friday, and I spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov on Saturday, when the Russian ambassador to London was summoned to the Foreign Office. We have urged Russia to meet its international commitments and to choose a path out of confrontation and military action.
At our request, the UN Security Council held an urgent meeting on Sunday. Members of the council called for international monitors to be sent to Ukraine to observe the situation and stressed the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the need to lower tensions. NATO’s North Atlantic Council met on Sunday, and called for Russia to withdraw its troops to bases and to refrain from further provocative actions in Ukraine, in line with its international commitments. The NATO-Ukraine Commission was also convened.
Yesterday, at the Foreign Affairs Council, European nations strongly condemned Russia’s acts of aggression, called on Russia immediately to withdraw its forces to the areas of their permanent stationing, and without delay to agree to the request by Ukraine for direct consultations with Russia as well as under the Budapest memorandum. The council stated that in the absence of de-escalating steps by Russia, the European Union will decide the consequences for relations between the EU and Russia, such as suspending bilateral talks with Russia on visa matters, and considering targeted measures. Heads of Government will meet at a European Council on Thursday. As the Prime Minister and President Obama have said, there must be significant costs to Russia if it does not change course on Ukraine.
EU member states have reconfirmed the offer of an association agreement with Ukraine, including a deep and comprehensive free trade area, and confirmed our commitment to support an international assistance package to support Ukraine, based on a clear commitment to reforms. The Council also agreed to work on the adoption of restrictive measures for the freezing and recovery of misappropriated Ukrainian assets.
In terms of immediate steps to respond to Russia’s actions and acting in concert with the G7, we have withdrawn the UK from preparations this week for the G8 summit in Sochi in June. We will not send any UK Government representatives to the Paralympic games beginning this week, while maintaining our full support for the British athletes taking part.
Secondly, we are urging direct contact between the Ukrainian and Russian Governments. We are willing to pursue any diplomatic avenue that could help to reduce tensions, so we have called for urgent consultations under the Budapest memorandum, or the creation of a contact group including Russia and Ukraine. We urge Russia to accept the invitation to attend talks under the Budapest memorandum in Paris tomorrow, which I will attend.
The UK supports the powerful case for the deployment of UN and OSCE monitors to Crimea and other areas of concern in Ukraine, given the grave risk of clashes and escalation on the ground. We are taking part in urgent consultations in Vienna. We welcome the Ukrainian Government’s support for such deployments and we call on Russia to follow suit.
The Prime Minister and I have both spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to urge him to use the UN’s authority to bring about direct contact between Russia and Ukraine, and to urge the peaceful resolution of this issue. I welcome the fact that the deputy Secretary-General is in Ukraine today.
Thirdly, we are working to support the Ukrainian Government, who are facing immense political and economic challenges on top of the invasion of their territory. Yesterday, I returned from Kiev, where I encouraged Ukraine’s leaders to make a decisive break with the country’s history of pervasive corruption, failed IMF programmes and poor governance. I urged acting President Turchynov and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to continue to take measures that unify the country and protect the rights of all Ukraine’s citizens, including minority groups. I welcome the steps they have taken, including the appointment of new regional governors in Russian-speaking regions, and the veto of recent proposed legislation affecting the status of the Russian language.
In return for urgent commitments and reforms, it is vital that Ukraine receive international financial and technical assistance. The International Monetary Fund should be front and centre of any programme of assistance, an approach I discussed with the IMF in Washington last week, and it sent officials to Kiev yesterday. G7 Finance Ministers have issued a statement declaring our readiness to mobilise rapid technical assistance to support Ukraine in addressing its macro-economic, regulatory, and anti-corruption challenges.
The EU has also previously committed €610 million in financial assistance to Ukraine, which could be made available once an IMF programme has been agreed. In the longer term, through the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and neighbourhood funding, the EU will continue to provide significant support to Ukraine.
For our part, as I informed the Ukrainian Government yesterday, we will provide immediate technical assistance to Ukraine to support elections and assist with reforms on public financial management, debt management, and energy pricing. We are exploring further UK expertise to assist with programmes to tackle corruption, reform the labour market, and improve the investment climate in Ukraine, and a British team is already in Kiev to co-ordinate these efforts. We have also offered assistance on asset recovery. I agreed with the President of Ukraine yesterday to send a team to assist Ukraine to provide the information we need to recover stolen assets, and to address this problem more widely.
Over the past four years, the Government have sought and secured an improved relationship with Russia, and we continue to work with Russia on immense global issues such as the nuclear negotiations with Iran, and to try to make progress towards peace in Syria.
The UK’s national interest lies in a free, democratic, unified, stable and peaceful Ukraine able to make its own decisions about its future. We will continue to do everything we can to support the diplomatic resolution of all the issues I have described, exercising our responsibilities as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and working closely with the nations of NATO and the European Union. We will continue to discuss the situation directly with Russia’s leaders.
But we also have a direct national interest in the maintenance of international law, the upholding of treaty obligations, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent nations, and the diplomatic resolution of conflicts that affect the peace and security of us all. For that reason, it is important that there is a clear response to these events, and that they are not repeated, and that is what we will pursue with determination in the days and weeks ahead.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it this morning.
This crisis represents the most serious threat to European security in decades. Russia’s actions are a clear and unambiguous violation of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. There can be no justification for this dangerous and unprovoked military incursion. None the less, the Ukrainian Government are indeed to be commended, as the Foreign Secretary has done, for their calm response to this severe provocation.
The immediate priority must now be diplomatic action to secure a de-escalation of the crisis. Achieving this requires the international community to show both unity and resolve in pursuit of a twin-track approach aimed at stabilising the current situation. First, the international community needs to alter the calculus of risk in the minds of the Russian leaders by developing a graduated hierarchy of diplomatic and economic measures that make clear to the Russians the costs and consequences of this aggression. At the same time, the international community must make it clear to Kiev that the new Ukrainian Government must be inclusive, protect the rights of Russian-speaking populations within Ukraine, and make it clear to Russia that strengthening ties between Ukraine and the European Union should not be seen as a zero-sum game that will necessarily prejudice its own bilateral relations.
The obligations on Russia are clear, but so too must be the consequences of inaction. Yesterday’s decision at the EU Foreign Affairs Council to suspend further talks on the EU-Russia visa liberalisation programme was an important initial step, but will the Foreign Secretary inform the House of whether the UK was advocating further diplomatic measures beyond that?
It is right that the EU Council has called an emergency session for Thursday, but given yesterday’s events in Downing street, it is also right that there should be more clarity from the British Government, ahead of that meeting, about the types of costs and consequences that they are willing to impose on Russia. So will the Foreign Secretary reaffirm specifically that for the United Kingdom not only all diplomatic but all economic options do indeed remain on the table, going into the talks on Thursday? I am afraid that the United Kingdom’s words will count for little without more credence being given to these options and a willingness at least to countenance their use in the days and weeks ahead.
The House should understand that the costs and consequences to the European Union of not achieving unity and resolve at this time are clear: a Russia emboldened in its ambitions towards Ukraine; a central Europe fearful of future military intervention; and a United States increasingly concerned about Europe’s willingness to act, even diplomatically and economically, in the face of such threats. Therefore, as well as pulling out of the Sochi G8 preparatory meetings, will the Foreign Secretary specifically confirm whether the UK remains open to withdrawing from that June summit?
Alongside diplomatic pressure, it is also right that the international community should give appropriate assurances to both sides about the potential dividends of avoiding a descent into further violence. Recent estimates suggest that the Ukrainian Finance Ministry needs $35 billion of support over the next two years in order to avoid economic collapse. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s announcement today of technical assistance for economic and political reform in Ukraine and, of course, he has previously highlighted the very serious and real concerns about ongoing corruption in Ukraine. However, given the acknowledged weakness of the present Ukrainian Government, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether, in his judgment, the IMF will be able to respond in a timescale that avoids the present security crisis being rapidly followed by a financing crisis in Kiev?
Russia’s incursion into Ukraine was, of course, unjustified and illegal, but the Ukrainian Government none the less have a key role to play in helping to diffuse the situation by providing the appropriate assurances to Russia about their conduct, intentions and priorities. That includes being clear about the status of minorities in the country, the attitude to the Russian language and the conduct of fresh elections in the months ahead.
Will the Foreign Secretary set out what specific assurances he sought from the Ukrainian Government during his welcome visit to Kiev yesterday regarding the status of minorities and in particular the Russian language, given the steps previously agreed and then vetoed by the Ukrainian President? It is vital, as the Foreign Secretary has indicated, that these assurances are given as part of an open and direct dialogue between Kiev and Moscow. Indeed, a contact group may certainly have a constructive role to play.
The inviolability of Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity reflects deeply held principles of the international system. The situation on the ground certainly remains tense, uncertain and, indeed, vulnerable to misunderstanding or misjudgment. That is why this is a time for cool heads and considered words.
As upholders of that international order, the United Kingdom and our allies have responsibilities that extend beyond regard for each individual country’s bilateral relations with Russia. The Ukraine crisis is surely a moment of real geopolitical significance, so the United Kingdom must not now retreat into a new isolationism and should instead keep all diplomatic and economic measures open to us and our partners as we work to achieve unity and resolve in the international community’s diplomatic response, and so contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis.
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman called for all diplomatic measures to be used, which, as he and the House will have gathered from my statement, is absolutely what we are doing. Indeed, I think from his questions that there is very strong agreement about the gravity of the threat and the principles that should guide us in responding to it.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke, as I have done frequently over the past few days, about the violation of Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. Like me, he commended the Ukrainian Government on their restraint. I certainly urge them to continue with that and to continue to do everything they can to show that they are being inclusive within Ukraine and that there is no threat to Russian-speaking or other minorities. Indeed, I put it to them yesterday that they could consider positively additional changes to language laws to give an extra assurance. I very much welcome the decision of the acting President not to allow any laws that infringe Russian language rights to go ahead.
On the subject of the Ukrainian Government, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether I thought the IMF would be able to respond. I think there is strong recognition among the Ukrainian Ministers I met that they need to do something quite different economically and that they have to tackle the deep-seated issues that I described in my statement. I think it is entirely possible that the IMF will be able to respond, although possibly in a two-stage process, with the second stage following the elections on 25 May. I met three of the likely presidential candidates while I was there—they are not in the Government, but they are likely to run for President—and I encouraged all of them to support economic reforms, including an end to corruption and much greater transparency in government in Ukraine. I think there is a reasonable prospect of agreeing a programme on the basis of such commitments.
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed the initial step—I think that is the right way to describe it—taken at the Foreign Affairs Council. Certainly, the United Kingdom has strongly advocated that we need to be ready to take further actions. Those actions, however, must be on a united basis and, of course, be well judged and well targeted. Therefore, I do not think it would be helpful for different countries to announce ahead of the European Council what they want to see. It is important that the European Council agree a united position and whatever measures it decides to take on Thursday.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether all diplomatic and economic options remain on the table, and the answer is yes, as we discussed during oral questions earlier. No partially photographed documents should be taken as any guide to Her Majesty’s Government’s decisions on these matters. Those options remain open.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the June summit. We have suspended the preparations for it. As I told the media yesterday, the G7 will be able to hold meetings of our own if that suspension continues and that, of course, is an option. It will be necessary not only to take well-judged measures in our response, but for there to be recognition across the European Union that Russia needs the EU economically just as much, or more, than the EU needs Russia. We need to have the common political will and to organise ourselves in a sufficiently cohesive way in order to have the political will and economic leverage in future to make that much clearer than it is today. I think that doing that may be one of the longer-term consequences of what Russia has done in Crimea.
Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I put it to the Foreign Secretary that Brussels is partly to blame for this Ukrainian crisis? If the already over-enlarged European Union is going to continue to try to extend its borders towards Mongolia, we will indeed finish up with a third world war. Every Russian knows that the capture of Crimea and Sevastopol was the greatest achievement of Catherine the Great—that is why she is called “Great”—and Potemkin. No Russian Government of whatever political complexion could ever give up Crimea or Sevastopol, and we can be absolutely certain that the Russian people are passionately in support of President Putin over this issue.
Mr Hague
I differ with my right hon. Friend a little bit on this. Russia gave Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 and followed that in the 1990s with a series of specific agreements, including the Budapest memorandum and the 1997 agreement on the Black sea bases, in which it forswore the use of armed force or intrusion on to the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia chose to do that and it must honour its international obligations.
I assure my right hon. Friend that it is not the ambition of the EU, or of the UK for the EU, to extend its borders to Mongolia. What we are talking about is not Ukrainian membership of the European Union, but free trade: a free trade agreement—an association agreement—between the EU and a country that freely chose to enter into negotiations about it. It should not be possible for any other country to have a veto over any nation choosing to do that.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I commend the work of the Foreign Secretary, and the wise approach of my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary? The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is a very different narrative in Russia to justify actions that we all regard as completely unjustified. One issue on which the Russian Government have seized is the decision of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, to seek to change the law guaranteeing regional languages, including Russian. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commendation of the interim President’s veto of that law, but would it not be better to pressure the new interim Government into repealing the legislation altogether? As long as it remains on Ukraine’s statute book, it will be a running sore, and it will be used by the Russian Government as a means of justifying their intervention.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Just to be clear, the repeal of the law has not gone on to the statute book: the President vetoed it. However, I agree with the thrust of his question, which is that there may well be more that the Government can do to give assurances on that matter, and to make sure that they have language laws entirely satisfactory to all minorities in Ukraine. I put it to the Prime Minister yesterday that that should be one of the things they work on, and we will encourage the Government of Ukraine to do so.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I am grateful for this second opportunity to ask a question, Mr Speaker, so I shall be brief. Does my right hon. Friend recognise any parallels between Russia’s action in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and its current policy towards Ukraine and Crimea?
Mr Hague
Yes, I do, unfortunately. What those actions—there is a parallel with Transnistria as well—have in common is that they can be seen as attempts to impair and permanently obstruct the proper operation of the free and democratic functioning of those countries and of their co-operation with Euro-Atlantic structures. There has been a clear pattern of behaviour towards Moldova and Georgia, and it is now being repeated in Ukraine.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Poland and the Baltic states are increasingly nervous of Russia’s expansionist tendency. As the Foreign Secretary has already said, there are still Russian troops in Georgia. Is it not therefore all the more incumbent on us—the European Union as a whole—to stand up, united and calm but extremely robust, lest Crimea become a 21st-century Abyssinia or Sudetenland?
Mr Hague
Yes, I agree. All the words that the hon. Gentleman has used are important in that respect: in this situation, the nations of the European Union and the European Council when it meets on Thursday are required to be united, robust and calm. As I have explained to the House, the options for further measures are open. As I have also said, it is important that there should be costs to behaviour of this kind. I very strongly believe that.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
What conclusions can be drawn from the fact that Russian troops in Crimea have not worn any marks of identification or insignia?
Mr Hague
That happened in the early stages of the Russian operation, and it was clearly designed to try to conceal the fact that it was a Russian operation. However, all such pretence was subsequently cast aside, because many thousands of Russian troops appear to have been deployed to Crimea. It shows that this was a well-planned, perhaps a long-planned, operation, and that it was put into force in a way that tried to minimise the reaction of the international community.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary quickly lay out the Government’s position on sanctions against Russia in general? In particular, what is his view about calls for a complete boycott of Russia’s Olympic games?
Mr Hague
The winter Olympics have happened; the Paralympics are taking place over the next couple of weeks. As I mentioned in my statement, we will not be sending UK Government representatives, but the Government do not believe in sporting boycotts of Olympic events. Our athletes will continue to go to the Paralympics, and I am sure that they will have the support and enthusiasm of this House in the great endeavours they will make.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend first make it clear that the document, which very unfortunately was partially revealed yesterday, is not a statement of Government policy? Does he agree that Russia’s actions are in breach not just of the UN charter, decisions of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Budapest memorandum, as he said, but of the agreement establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States, and that Russia’s actions have very serious implications for other former Soviet Union territories as well as for Ukraine?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes some very important points. I made it clear during questions that no single official document carried into a meeting is necessarily representative of the decisions that will be made by Her Majesty’s Government or by Ministers, but let me make that clear again.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the implications for other former Soviet republics and for their independence. That is why this is not an isolated issue. It is not possible to say, “Well, this is okay. It is just about Crimea, and we don’t have to worry about it.” It has very important implications for upholding international treaties and obligations, and for respect for the independence and sovereignty of nation states.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Council of Europe was established to promote respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and Russia is a member of it. What role does the Foreign Secretary see for the Council of Europe in the current situation?
Mr Hague
There is an important role for the Council of Europe, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe has already spoken to the secretary-general of the Council of Europe about the role that it can play. It of course has an important role to play in any issues about the protection of minorities. It is not acceptable for a member of the Council of Europe to behave in this way, and there must be consequences within the Council of Europe as well.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will recall that when he made a statement last week, I asked whether he had received an assurance—a cast-iron commitment—from Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia would not intervene in Ukraine. We have now seen it intervene, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can confirm overnight reports that I have had from a friend in Donetsk that the Russians have bussed in Russian citizens from outside Ukraine to act as agents provocateurs? Does he agree that that kind of action is wholly unacceptable and represents a return to a kind of Soviet-style foreign policy?
Mr Hague
Although I cannot confirm the reports mentioned by my hon. Friend, I have heard other reports to the same effect, including when I was in Ukraine yesterday. That is why I said at questions—when I was asked about disturbances in eastern parts of Ukraine, such as in Donetsk—that it is not clear whether disturbances have been inspired from outside. There is a serious possibility that some of the disturbances are inspired from outside the country, and we should see them in that light.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Citing Russia’s central bank, the Financial Times reports today that up to two thirds of Russian money in London is from corruption and other crime. At the very least, if Britain’s tough words are to mean anything, should not those assets be frozen now?
Mr Hague
We have very important regulations in this country covering politically exposed persons—banking regulations cover them—and we have strong laws on money laundering. The right hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about agreeing with the Ukrainian Prime Minister yesterday about the recovery of assets stolen from Ukraine. Our options are open on that.
Given our experience of applying sanctions to several parts of the world in recent years, I would only add at the moment that if we are to apply sanctions to individuals we must be very sure of our case legally and have the evidence to sustain cases through court proceedings. We have to bear that in mind.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Surely we must ensure that we cannot be accused of double standards. We were rightly prepared to violate the territorial integrity of Serbia to protect the right to self-determination of the Kosovans. Presumably, we should look equally kindly on the right to self-determination of the ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donetsk. Therefore, can we please resist the wilder talk of economic sanctions, which can only damage the fragile recovery of Europe, and instead engage in diplomatic dialogue with Russia and Ukraine?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend can gather, we are engaged in every channel of diplomatic dialogue and that will continue. As I have said, I will be in Paris tomorrow at the same time as Foreign Minister Lavrov. Our diplomatic efforts with Russia will continue at all times.
However, as other Members have said, it is right to have a response that goes beyond that. That is why we have announced certain measures in respect of the G8, why the EU has made an announcement about the visa regime and why I have said that other options are on the table. Such a challenge to international order and the maintenance of the UN charter and international law cannot possibly go ahead without costs and consequences.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
France is currently negotiating a €1 billion deal for two Mistral-class ships to be delivered to the Russian navy. Has the Foreign Secretary had any indication that France is considering whether it is appropriate to go ahead with that deal or whether to make it part of the sanctions negotiations?
Mr Hague
We have had no indications from France about that matter. As the hon. Lady will have gathered, there will be further extensive meetings, including between the European Heads of Government at the European Council on Thursday. Arms export licences will, of course, be one of the issues that European nations have to consider. It is important that we consider them together and have a united approach, but we must examine that issue.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
To pick up on the Foreign Secretary’s last point, the implication of what he has said is that if the Russians continue with their current strategy, there will be targeted sanctions against Russia from the EU, NATO and the US. Russia will respond by retaliating against individual countries to try to fracture the unity of that policy. Is he confident that he can maintain the unity of that policy in the long run, and what action is he taking to make sure of that?
Mr Hague
As my right hon. Friend will have noticed, I have stressed several times the importance of unity among the western nations, including in the European Union; the importance of any measures being well judged and well targeted; and the importance of any measures being legally sustainable. That is why these matters require calm and careful consideration, rather than quick unilateral announcements by this country or any other member state of the EU.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Russia’s action is obviously to be condemned and there should be no apologies for what it has done. However, is it not the case that a large majority of people in Crimea feel a strong attachment to Russia? We all know about Khrushchev’s impulsive action of handing Crimea over to Ukraine in 1954, when both places were part of the Soviet Union. If we want to de-escalate the crisis—surely we are not talking about a second Crimean war—is it not possible to find out through the democratic process, difficult as it is, what the people of Crimea want? I think that the majority verdict would be along the lines that I have indicated. Surely the views of the people should be taken into account in this crisis.
Mr Hague
We are not talking about a new Crimean war, although the action that Russia has taken—the use of armed force in Crimea—has risked a new Crimean war for that country. I would make one point to the hon. Gentleman. There is a Russian-speaking majority in Crimea, although it is of the order of 50% to 60%, but there are also important minorities, including the Tatar minority, and their rights need to be respected as well. It is too simplistic an approach to say that the majority in Crimea would like to be in a different situation from the current one. Any referendum that is held should be consistent with the constitution of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. That is not the current proposal.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that part of the problem is that Ukraine is a deeply divided society, in which both sides have, at one time or another, played winner-takes-all? He talks, rightly, about the importance of maintaining a unified Ukraine. Does he agree with the conclusion of Professor Anatol Lieven that
“the only way to keep Ukraine together may be the introduction of a new federal constitution with much greater powers for the different regions”?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is for Ukrainians to decide their constitutional structure. I am simply advocating the idea that they should make their decisions in accordance with their constitution. It is a country in which there is a strong case for more decentralisation. There is also a strong case, strategically, for turning away from a winner-takes-all attitude in politics. I have gone out of my way to stress to Russia that we do not see the situation in zero-sum terms. Although we welcome close ties between Ukraine and the European Union, we recognise that Russia has entirely legitimate interests in, and an entirely legitimate relationship with, Ukraine. We will continue to make that argument.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I think that we need to send out a search party to find the backbones that many European Governments, including our own, appear to have misplaced. The west has never seemed more unable or unwilling to stand up for its values. That weakness has clearly emboldened Putin—a KGB thug. Surely we should be pressing the case much more robustly for sanctions and asset freezing. What I cannot understand is why Putin is still a member of the G8.
Mr Hague
We have made an announcement about the G8. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we are working through diplomatic channels to make progress at the same time. That is the decision that we have taken. He might disagree and think that our reaction should be entirely about imposing costs. We have chosen, with other western nations, to advocate diplomatic ways forward at the same time as assessing how to ensure that there are costs and consequences. I agree with him about the importance of there being costs and consequences. I simply remind him that it is important for those to be arrived at in the united, robust and calm way that some of his hon. Friends have advocated.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I hope that a bully like President Putin will listen carefully to the strong and clear messages that the Foreign Secretary has delivered at the weekend and today. None the less, Putin will have noticed that, more importantly, the Russian stock exchange has collapsed by 10% and the rouble is under severe pressure. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree with me that, by contrast with what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle said, economic sanctions against Russia will work, even if it is at some cost to businesses in the UK?
Mr Speaker
For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the hon. Gentleman had in mind the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is important not to have cases of mistaken identity, because the Father of the House was looking gravely perturbed by the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Mr Hague
As I mentioned before, our options are open. I stress again that any measures must be well judged and well targeted, and that the European Union and the western world must be united. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) is right to point to what happened on the Moscow stock exchange and to the value of the Russian currency yesterday. There are major risks for Russia economically. I expressed the view a few moments ago that, in the medium to long term, Russia needs the economic co-operation of European nations just as much as or more than they need the co-operation of Russia. That has to become part of Russia’s calculations in the coming years.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
Given President Putin’s increasing international and domestic malevolence, is there not a danger that the west will get caught between saying strong words and taking no action on the one hand and, on the other hand, allowing Russia’s legitimate interests, such as its interest in the port of Sevastopol and its Mediterranean port, and its economic interests, to provide some spurious legitimacy for his actions? Is there not a case, therefore, for a new, more global, deal that addresses the legitimate Russian interests—although not the illegitimate ones—but protects self-determination around Russia’s border? That might provide some comfort to the President, and more importantly to the people, that NATO has limited ambitions around Russia’s border, because I think that that is part of the problem.
Mr Hague
We must be alert to the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman correctly refers, and we must be prepared to be imaginative about long-term frameworks and solutions. We have already made the argument—I made it only a week ago to Foreign Minister Lavrov—that we recognise those Russian interests and are not seeking a zero-sum strategic game, and that there will be ways for the Russian economy, as well as the Ukrainian economy, to benefit from closer ties to the European Union. However, the response to us and other countries making that argument has been what we have seen over the past few days. That does not stop our making it, but it shows how difficult it is to construct a global deal, as the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
In light of Russia’s bellicose behaviour, is the Foreign Secretary aware of the danger of Russia perceiving a calm response as a weak response?
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has a huge opportunity to make a difference on the ground and assist with de-escalation. What efforts are being supported at the OSCE headquarters in Vienna to ensure that the largest-scale monitoring mission is dispatched as soon as possible?
Mr Hague
We are working on two things in the OSCE, and I mentioned that urgent consultations are taking place in Vienna. One is the deployment of monitors to try to avoid the flashpoint we have been talking about. So far, Russia is refusing to accept such monitors in Crimea, but perhaps we can do more in other parts of Ukraine. We are also working on the creation of a contact group to try to open a new diplomatic channel and a forum for Russia and Ukraine to discuss things together. So far, Russia has not accepted that idea either, but we are continuing to pursue both ideas.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Given what the Foreign Secretary said about his recognition of the sensibilities of Russia in this situation, does he recognise that the EU’s ambitions for the Eastern Partnership and the association agreement over the past 18 months have borne some responsibility for the relationship between Russia and Ukraine? That is especially so given, for example, the express views of an EU diplomat last November, who stated—even threatened—that the Ukrainian leadership would have to come to the EU on their knees if they did not do what the EU wanted.
Mr Hague
We are talking about an association agreement that remains on the table between the EU and Ukraine, and a deep and comprehensive free-trade area. That is similar to something that Ukraine would willingly enter into. There is no requirement from the EU that it does that, and it is a very different thing from EU membership. It was being discussed with the Yanukovych Administration, because they wanted to discuss it with the European Union. I assure my hon. Friend that from everything I have seen in Ukraine, having been there on Sunday and Monday, there is strong political unity in that country that welcomes seeing the back of President Yanukovych, and that wants to enter into closer association with the European Union. That is its sovereign right and decision, and we should be prepared to defend its right to make those decisions.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
How close is the European Council to agreement on sanctions and other measures in response to Russia’s deplorable action, and how does that vary from the approach taken by the US?
Mr Hague
Work is taking place on this now. The Foreign Affairs Council met yesterday and made the announcements that I referred to in my statement, and there will, of course, be further work among EU nations between now and the European Council. On Thursday the Prime Minister spoke to President Hollande, and last night to Chancellor Merkel to co-ordinate our positions, and we will keep in close co-ordination with the United States. The hon. Lady will have to wait, I am afraid, for the Council on Thursday.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I understand that broad economic sanctions would be both counter-productive and harmful to the City of London, and would require the much broader approval of all members of the EU. Surely, however, there is a case for targeted financial and travel sanctions against members of the Russian elite living in the UK and involved in the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and who are strongly suspected of human rights abuses perpetrated against Sergei Magnitsky.
Mr Hague
There is a case for certain measures, and Members of the House, including my hon. Friend, make it well. I do not exclude the possibility of any such measures, but I simply return to what I was saying about them being well judged, well targeted and having a clear legal base. Those will be important considerations over the next few days.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Russia’s increasingly belligerent foreign policy—its military aggression in Crimea and the continued occupation of parts of Georgia—is funded by exports of its gas and oil. What can the European Union do to make countries in central and eastern Europe less dependent on oil and gas imports from Russia, and also make Ukraine less dependent?
Mr Hague
There are many things that can be done, some of which are under way. Countries can develop alternative energy supplies—[Interruption.]—including fracking, as I hear some Members behind me say. As the United States becomes an energy exporter, there could be alternative sources of energy in the future. In December I attended the inauguration of the new pipeline project from the Caspian sea, which will be a new route for gas supplies into Europe that does not pass through or from Russia. That infrastructure will take time to develop, but it is important put it in place.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
The world is becoming increasingly unstable, and this latest example to world peace is a classic case. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that our Government and country must rethink the funding of our armed forces to ensure we have the ships, and the Royal Navy, the Army and the Air Force, to meet potential threats in the future? I do not hint for one minute that we should go to war in this case, but it is surely a reminder that we need to keep our defences up.
Mr Hague
In an unstable world we need to keep up our defences. That is absolutely right and it is why the country is investing in very sophisticated military projects for the future. As things stand, we maintain the spending of 2% of our GDP on defence, and I think that many NATO countries have reduced their defence spending too far. We are one of the few NATO countries that maintains spending of 2% of our GDP, and there are countries across NATO that need to re-evaluate that and increase their defence spending in the coming years.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
On 9 July 1997 the charter on a distinctive partnership between Ukraine and NATO was signed, and on 21 August 2009, the declaration to complement that charter was signed. If possible NATO involvement is totally ruled out, are those signatures worth the paper they are written on?
Mr Hague
The NATO-Ukraine Commission has met on the back of those agreements, and there will be further NATO meetings. We in the House are clear, as was said a few minutes ago, that we are not planning another Crimean war from this country’s point of view. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman advocates that NATO should do in addition to the diplomatic moves we have made through NATO. The agreements with Ukraine are important, but they do not include coming to the armed defence of Ukraine.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The UK Conservative delegation to the Council of Europe has sought the suspension of Russia from the Council of Europe and, pending a decision on that, has declined to sit on the European Democrat Group under its current Russian chairmanship. Will the Secretary of State say what more the UK delegation or the Council of Europe as a whole can do to contribute towards the restoration of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in Ukraine?
Mr Hague
The issue should be raised vigorously in the Council of Europe. I welcome the decisions made by Conservative colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. There are Russian representatives in other political groups of the Council of Europe, and all political groups from Russia are, in one way or another, approved by the Kremlin. Opposition Members may therefore wish to attend to those matters. I hope that members of all parties in the Council of Europe will pursue the matter vigorously at their forthcoming part-sessions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has rightly welcomed the vetoing of the legislation downgrading the Russian language in Ukraine, but he will understand that the fact that the Parliament was prepared to pass and propose such legislation caused severe concern to the 20% of the population in Ukraine who are ethnically Russian. What further measures does he believe the Ukrainian Parliament should take to give reassurance to that part of the population that they are not under threat?
Mr Hague
That is a matter for the Ukrainians. As hon. Members understand, it is for the Ukrainians to decide in their country, but I put it to Ukrainian Ministers yesterday that, in addition to consolidating the veto of the legislation, they should think about crafting a new language law that represents the consensus in their country, and the long-term protection and upholding of the rights of minority languages in Ukraine. They are in the midst of a desperate crisis—we must understand that—but I hope they take that proposal seriously.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement the creation of a contact group including Russia and China as an alternative to consultations under the Budapest memorandum. What has China so far said or done to assist in this situation?
Mr Hague
My hon. and learned Friend might have noticed that I read that out as “Russia and Ukraine”, but China’s role is important. China has spoken at the UN Security Council of the importance of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. I hope that that is a statement and a position that China can develop over the coming days.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The incursion of any foreign troops into the Ukraine is wrong and can lead to further war and destabilisation, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that part of the problem is the ambition of NATO expansion further eastwards and more NATO or US-run bases in the region? Is it not time to bring about a long-term neutrality and de-escalation of NATO’s presence on the borders of Russia?
Mr Hague
Russia’s action is hardly designed to produce less NATO presence in countries that border Russia—far from it. The countries in close proximity to Russia will be anxious to have a stronger NATO presence in future. Russia’s action is very counter-productive from that point of view. NATO membership has not been in prospect for Ukraine. In any case, as so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, there is no excuse for Russia’s actions in the past few days. The idea that Ukraine was about to join NATO is certainly no justification for them. That was never in prospect.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Should we not look back at the lessons of the past couple of decades? The current Russian leadership is clearly not worried about its international obligations or treaties. As we have heard, it invaded and still occupies a part of Georgia; after a few diplomatic rumblings around the world, everything went back to normal. That gave the Russians the impression they can go on doing that with impunity, which is exactly what they have done. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend to push for the toughest possible economic sanctions, particularly at Thursday’s European Council. That is the only lesson the Russians will learn; otherwise, we will see the same happen over and over again. It is not surprising that former Soviet Union countries are worried.
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend makes his point well. That is why it is important that there should be costs and consequences for what has occurred. I cannot add to what I said earlier on measures we can take and how they must be well judged and well targeted, but Russia’s action will lead, over the coming years, to European nations assessing their interests differently. It will have long-term consequences for Russia’s relationship with the rest of Europe. That should be of concern to the Russians, whatever measures we can take in the short term.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I come from an area with a strong Ukrainian community. Growing up in Newcastle-under-Lyme, I regularly attended our Ukrainian club with friends of Ukrainian descent. Given the troubled history of democracy in the Ukraine since independence from the Soviet Union, will the Foreign Secretary urge the Government in Kiev and all the major political parties to accept international observers in the forthcoming elections to ensure that they are as fair and free as possible to all who take part?
Mr Hague
Yes, the hon. Gentleman can urge me to do that. We will do so. I have already stressed to the Ukrainian leaders the importance of the elections being free and fair and well conducted. They have set a rapid timetable—25 May—given the condition of the country, so international support is important, and I have already offered British expertise. We will certainly pursue the hon. Gentleman’s point on election observers.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his statesman-like handling of the situation. I urge him to work with all western allies of democracy to set out to President Putin with one voice a clear and credible position: that the aggressive intimidation and annexation of the new democracies of central and eastern Europe will simply not be tolerated. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the realities of the UK’s and Europe’s dependency on Ukraine and Russia make it crucial, as we set energy policy for the next Parliament, that, in addition to hitting the EU’s green targets, we put our energy security and geopolitical implications its at the top of the agenda?
Mr Hague
Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. I must not stray too far into the responsibilities of my colleagues, but it is important that our energy supply is not only efficient but sufficiently diverse for our national security. That will become an even more important consideration over the next few years.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the dangers of provocative misinformation by Russia, via media or social media, what discussions did the Foreign Secretary have with the Ukrainian Government on ensuring that the Ukrainian people, including those in Crimea, continue to have free and unfettered access to objective sources of information on what is happening in their country?
Mr Hague
That is an important point and a difficult one for the Ukrainian authorities, because Russian state television is broadcast in many regions of Ukraine, where people therefore hear only one partial side of the argument. From what I could see, the Ukrainian authorities are taking every step to correct misinformation whenever they can and are giving maximum information to the world’s media. However, this is one of those occasions when it is important for people to use social media and listen to different sources of information, because they will not receive the truth from just one source.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has alluded to the danger of Crimea becoming yet another frozen conflict. When Russia occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia, thousands of ethnic Georgians had to flee their homes and cross the border. What steps does he believe the international community should take to protect the rights of ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea?
Mr Hague
That too is important. It is one of the reasons we want Ukraine and Russia to be able to talk to each other about the diplomatic settlement of these issues. The position is very complex, given the range of minorities in Crimea. It is currently impossible for people to leave, because road and air access to and from Crimea is now extremely difficult. There could also be very serious medium-term implications. This is another strong argument for Russia to engage with a contact group, or in consultations under the Budapest memorandum, rather than allowing the problem to build up over the coming weeks.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
For many years the majority of the delegates to the Council of Europe from this Parliament have been members of the same group as Putin’s Russian party and Yanukovych’s Ukrainian party, and have collaborated with them closely on a number of reactionary policies. Can we take it that the breach with the European Democrat Group is permanent, and that the Conservatives in the Council of Europe will be joining their natural allies in the Christian Democratic Group?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what was said earlier by Conservative members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, who made clear their departure from the previous arrangements. However, I believe that for all this time members of the so-called Liberal Democratic party—an extremely nationalistic party from Russia—have sat in the Socialist Group, so some attention needs to be given to the issue on the other side of the House as well.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)
I have been visiting Crimea every year since 1992. This morning I was speaking to the parents of my godchild in Simferopol. They described the rapture with which the people of Crimea are greeting the Russian troops, but they are extremely concerned about the illegal, rough and appalling behaviour of the Cossack movement—not the Cossack people, but the Cossack movement. May I ask the Secretary of State to give full attention to this gang of unpleasant creatures, and to emphasise that their conduct must be reformed?
Mr Hague
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, have raised important dimensions of the situation, and have drawn attention to problems that need to be gripped. The United Kingdom’s ability to take such action is, of course, very small, and that is another reason why we are exerting pressure for a diplomatic settlement. Unless Russia and Ukraine speak directly about these matters—unless Russia is willing to do so—all these issues will become much worse in the coming days, and will become a growing problem for Russia as well as for Ukraine.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What reassurance can the Foreign Secretary give the Ukrainian community in this country who have made such a major contribution over the years, in the pits in some cases? May I also ask whether he thinks that he will be able to secure unity on sanctions, given that Germany, for example, relies on Russia for 30% of its oil and gas?
Mr Hague
I think that members of the Ukrainian community in Britain, to whom others have referred, have played a very important role in this country, and this is a moment at which to recognise and applaud that. As the hon. Gentleman will understand from everything that I have said today, they can be assured of the importance that we attach to this issue, and the energy that we will put into assisting the achievement of a peaceful, democratic future for Ukraine.
As for the hon. Gentleman’s question about sanctions, I have already addressed it several times. It is important for there to be costs and consequences, but it is also important to change, over the long term, the balance of the economic relationship—including the energy relationship—between European nations and Russia, and we will be giving our attention to that.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
We must give whatever credible support we can to the free people and Government of Ukraine. One of Russia’s greatest vulnerabilities is its desperate need for capital investment. Can the European Union specifically consider reasonable legal means of interrupting capital investment flows to Russia if Mr Putin does not step back from this illegal and unjustified aggression?
Mr Hague
Several proposals have been made during the questions on my statement, and I have not ruled out any of the options. Economic and financial options are open to us, depending on consultations with other countries and depending on the course of events over the next few days.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
If the UK Government were serious about putting pressure on Russia, they would be considering economic sanctions, including restricting the flow of money and assets from Russia to the City of London. The United States is considering such a course of action, but it would be largely ineffective without a similar European response. Does not the ruling out of such action mean that the interests of the square mile are driving UK foreign policy, and that the international response will be hindered?
Mr Hague
I think that the hon. Gentleman has been here for the last hour and a quarter, but he did not show much sign of that in asking his question. I have not ruled out any of those options. No measure proposed by any of our allies has so far been blocked by the United Kingdom. I have explained that actions that we take—in regard to which we have not ruled out any options—will be taken with our allies, with careful consideration, and depending on the course of events over the next few days.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The Budapest memorandum marks a very substantial piece of nuclear disarmament—total on the part of Ukraine, and substantial in terms of the number of weapons that Ukraine held at that time. The Secretary of State has been clear about the obligations placed on Russia as a signatory to the memorandum, but it now seems that, as far as the Ukrainians were concerned, it was not worth a light. What obligations, either implicit or explicit, are placed on us as a signatory?
Mr Hague
Our obligation is to support, as we do, the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. The memorandum does not place on us an obligation to take armed action, but article 6 refers to consultation between the signatories, and that is what we are now seeking. Indeed, that is what we and the United States are proposing for tomorrow, when Secretary Kerry, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I, and the acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine, will all be in Paris. The memorandum gives us that opportunity, and that is the technical answer to my hon. Friend’s question.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the Foreign Secretary’s comments about energy security, the United Kingdom thankfully receives only a limited supply of Russian gas, but other European countries, particularly Germany, have considerable exposure, with consequences for the rest of Europe. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his European Union counterparts about ensuring the security of European energy supply, so that this does not end up limiting our ability to take action against Russia?
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important issue, but it is an issue for the medium to longer term. We are doing important things now to diversify energy supplies to Europe. I have already mentioned the new pipeline through Azerbaijan, whose construction we inaugurated in December. That pipeline, however, will take several years to construct.
Although this is, as I have said, a medium to long-term issue, I think that what has just happened will be a sharp reminder to everyone in Europe and in this country that it is also an important issue, and that dealing with it will become one of the important foreign policy and security considerations over the next few years.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This is a real test for the United States and, indeed, for the Obama Administration, but it is also a test for the European Union. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his German counterpart? He has used the word “united” numerous times during his statement and in his replies. Are the Germans part of that united effort? Of course, other members of the international community are looking on to see whether there is unity and whether there is resoluteness, not least in Beijing, which has its own aspirations in different parts of the world?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has made a good point about European unity and the role of Germany in that. I have very regular discussions with my German counterpart, Minister Steinmeier—indeed, I had a discussion with him at the weekend— and the Minister for Europe was with him at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. The Prime Minister spoke to Chancellor Merkel last night, having also had discussions with her when she was here last Thursday. We will be working closely with Germany, and we will be working for a clear, united position at the European Council on Thursday.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Is not part of the explanation for the action taken that Putin and his Government are seriously concerned that the same thing might happen in Russia as has happened in Ukraine, where people power has taken over?
Mr Hague
As with many countries, Russian foreign policy is partly determined by domestic pressures, and what happened 10 days ago in Ukraine was a major reverse for Russian foreign policy. In many ways, many would have thought it a humiliation. There are many explanations of why Russia has chosen to take the action it has, and one is that it is an attempt to alleviate, including in domestic opinion, that humiliation of the flight of Yanukovych from Kiev.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
This is nothing less than a land grab and the biggest strategic shock on the continent for decades. If Putin gets away with this, sooner or later more trouble will follow in central and eastern Europe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the west now needs to unify around a much more robust response than we have seen so far, and that in support of it the UK should demonstrate that it is actively considering all forms of economic sanctions?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are actively considering a wide range of options, and I have not ruled out any options in my responses to questions, as I am sure he will have noticed. Clearly, I think the response we have made so far is correct. We have emphasised the need for new diplomatic openings as well as for there to be costs and consequences from this Russian action, but in the absence of a change of policy from Russia we will, of course, have to move on to making sure those costs and consequences ensue.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned arms export licences earlier. In considering what sanctions may be used against Russia, has he had any discussions with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence about the forthcoming military and technical co-operation agreement, which I understand is due to be signed in the next few weeks?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady is right that we have been due to agree to sign a military and technical co-operation agreement with Russia in the near future. Clearly, in the current situation the chances of our doing that are rather reduced, to put it mildly, but we have not made a formal decision about that. We are certainly reviewing that, and we will decide about it in conjunction with any other measures we choose to adopt.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Russia may well be trying to repeat in Crimea what it has been allowed to do in Moldova. Why should the Russians fear that the international community will act differently from how it acted over Moldova?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right that, as I have said in answer to earlier questions, there are parallels with Transnistria, and, indeed, with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are part of Georgia. Russia has certainly been able to live with any consequences of those actions in the past. This is a repetition of that, but on an even greater scale, so there must be costs and consequences in response, to deter the repetition of such events in future.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
But what are the other costs and consequences that the Secretary of State is actively considering? He has mentioned visa restrictions, but surely just restricting a few people from entering is not sufficient to meet the bar of significant costs, given how much Russia clearly feels it has to gain from its current actions in Ukraine? Will he say what else is actively on the table?
Mr Hague
No—to be consistent with all the answers I have given before. The European Union has referred to targeted measures and I have referred to well judged, well targeted legal measures. I have not excluded anything. Many hon. Members have made interesting proposals during the course of this statement, but I stressed before that when we take such measures it is important for there to be unity on them, as well as for them to be well judged and well targeted. That means we must work on them together in the European Union, and that is what we are doing now.
Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Why does my right hon. Friend believe President Putin feels that he will get away with this? What are we and the rest of the free world doing wrong if Putin believes he can act with impunity, as he clearly does?
Mr Hague
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), there have been previous Russian actions in Georgia and Moldova which might be considered a model for this action, and Russia has not felt sharp consequences as a result of them. That is no doubt an emboldening factor, but I think Russian policy has also been driven by the imperative I referred to a few moments ago of trying to alleviate, or reverse in some way, the major setback for Russian foreign policy that took place only 10 days ago in Ukraine, and also possibly by the desire—which I referred to much earlier—permanently to impair the free and democratic operation of Ukraine and its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. There is a mixture of motives, and I entirely accept that it is important that we raise the penalties and consequences for acting on those motives.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Even if Russia will not agree at this stage to having international monitors in the areas under its control, if the Ukrainian Government agree, is there not a case for a rapid deployment of international monitors to other areas of Ukraine, particularly those where there is potential conflict? That may well deter further incursion by Russia and those aligned with it, and will also allow the truth of what is happening to come out.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Two years ago this week the House unanimously endorsed the principle of the Magnitsky sanctions, which are visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for crimes against humanity in Russia but also beyond. In light of the situation in Ukraine, may I urge my right hon. Friend to look closely at the Magnitsky model of targeted sanctions for those responsible for ordering the military incursions into Ukraine, a clear violation of the cardinal rule of international law?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend has consistently pursued this matter over a long time and he has heard the previous answers of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe about it. We already have the power to refuse entry to the UK to people who we believe are guilty of serious human rights violations, but I say again that I am not excluding any options on what we might decide to do in this situation.
Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)
With all that is unfolding in Ukraine, there is great concern in nations such as Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland about their future. What reassurance is my right hon. Friend giving our NATO partners that we stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the defence of their sovereignty and independence?
Mr Hague
I think they know we do. Those countries are very important members of NATO. I mentioned earlier our strong commitment to NATO, including maintaining the strongest armed forces in Europe all round, but it will be important for other countries across NATO to strengthen their own military budgets and defences over the coming years. I have advocated that for a long time, and I think that would be of additional assurance to them.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
President Putin has shown very clearly that under his leadership Russia will not respect the border and the sovereignty of a friendly neighbour. As a president who prides himself on advancing Russia’s self-interest, should he not be profoundly alarmed by the market reaction to that action? Regardless of what individual nation states or the European Union decide, will not many businesses across the world be looking at this and asking how, if Russia can act so cavalierly on something so big, they can invest in Russia?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think Russia has underestimated the longer-term consequences of the action it has taken, because there is an important read-across to upholding international law on other issues. The reaction of the world over the long term will tend to diminish the influence of Russia in the world. This will also, of course, shed new light on Russia’s insistence on sovereignty in other international disputes. It will have very far-reaching consequences, and I do not think they have yet been fully appreciated in Moscow.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Huddersfield has a vibrant Ukrainian community, which I know is very concerned about family and loved ones across the whole of Ukraine. The attention in the past few days has been on Crimea, but what assessment does my right hon. Friend make of the civil unrest across the rest of the country in cities such as Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk?
Mr Hague
The situation in those cities and areas is an important consideration, too. New governors have been appointed in some of those areas, and they have been drawn from those areas. The acting President of Ukraine has told me of the care he has taken to do that, so that there is an inclusive approach to regional and local government. There have been disturbances in some of those cities, although, as other hon. Members have said, there is some evidence that those have been planned externally—we do not have any proof of that, but there is some evidence of it. I hope that calm will return to those parts of Ukraine.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
I wish to pursue the question from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). Should the people of Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine seek a plebiscite to determine their sovereign future, what concrete support can the British Government give to ensure that such plebiscites are conducted freely and fairly, and not down the barrel of a Russian gun?
Mr Hague
We cannot give much assistance if a plebiscite takes place in an area entirely controlled by the Russian military—clearly we will not be able to give any such guarantees. It would be far better for such plebiscites or referendums to be held under the Ukrainian constitution, with international observers, exactly in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The referendum currently planned for Crimea on 30 March, under the eyes or guns of the Russian military, is not one to which we could give that same level of assistance.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May I seek clarification from the Foreign Secretary that in the event of there being a legally and freely constituted referendum on sovereignty in Crimea, under the Ukrainian constitution, the Budapest memorandum of 1994 would not be an impediment to it?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend puts big ifs into his question, because the situation at the moment is not at all the one he describes; the referendum proposed for Crimea is not properly and legally constituted under the Ukrainian constitution. So we are a long way from that situation but, as he knows, the UK will always try to respect democracy and the principles of human rights that we believe in, which so often include self-determination, whenever they are truly, freely and legally expressed.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but the interest, complexity and severity of this crisis justify not only a statement, but a full debate in the House on the matter. As a soldier, I had to study the Geneva conventions and the Hague regulations, which both state that combatants must wear a
“fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance”.
Does the Secretary of State agree that Russia must abide by the Geneva conventions in order to avoid incorrect or confused targeting or engagement, with the possibility of igniting a more serious and deadly conflict?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend makes a crucial point; despite having one of the last questions he has managed to make a new and pertinent point. There are reasons why soldiers should wear the insignia of their country, and the most terrible misunderstandings can occur without that. So he is right about that. On the subject of a debate, the Leader of the House is not in his place but I am sure that he is always aware of such requests and he will have heard that particular one.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Russia’s provocative warmongering exposes its long-term weakness and will serve to drive more and more Ukrainians to the ineluctable conclusion that their future lies with the west? Rather than being frightened of that, should we not warmly welcome Ukraine as a potential ally within the institutions of Europe?
Mr Hague
So far as I could see yesterday, the effect of the Russian intervention has been to solidify the determination among Ukrainians about their own independence, including among leading figures in the Party of Regions, which usually represents the east and south of Ukraine. My hon. Friend is also right to say that this action is born of weakness rather than strength. As I was arguing a few minutes ago, it is a response to a major reverse and an effort to alleviate that. The people of Ukraine will be all the more determined to pursue their own sovereign rights, including closer association with the European Union.
Mr Speaker
The prize for patience today goes to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), who has stayed in the Chamber for an hour and a half without any indication of frustration or irascibility at hearing his colleagues. We are grateful to him.
Mr Hague
I hope that Ukraine will be able to trade with all its neighbours, including Russia. European Union membership is not what is on offer to Ukraine—that is not what is being discussed or debated. Association with the EU and a deep and comprehensive free trade area with the EU are the things on offer. Any possibility of EU membership is too distant to be a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future.
Point of Order
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 5 November, in a Westminster Hall debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) stated unequivocally that hepatitis C is not a curable condition. It has been drawn to my attention by the Hepatitis C Trust and a number of others that the Minister may have inadvertently misled Parliament, because with current treatments the cure rates are about 70%—or even higher, according to the NHS Choices website. Hepatitis C is a hugely overlooked and under-diagnosed condition, and I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how we can have the record corrected so that the public are not misled by the Minister’s comments.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response to him, a persistent fellow, is twofold. First, all Members have responsibility for the veracity of the statements they make in the Chamber. In the event that an error is made, it is incumbent upon the Member, be they a Back Bencher or a Front Bencher, a Minister or an Opposition Member, to correct the record. Secondly, on the strength of what I have heard, and I use those words advisedly, it seems to me that this is, in essence, a matter of political debate.
Mr Speaker
I am weighing my words carefully, notwithstanding the evident frustration of the hon. Gentleman, and it is not obvious to me that there is a role for the Chair here. He asks my advice and my advice to him is that he should be persistent—I am not sure he needs this advice—and repetitive. Doubtless he will find other opportunities to raise his point, courtesy of the use of the Order Paper. He has been doing it for the past nearly four years and there is no reason to suppose that he will change the habits of what, thus far, has been his parliamentary lifetime.
Sale of Tickets (Sporting and Cultural Events)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the selling of tickets for certain sporting and cultural events; and for connected purposes.
The Bill I am proposing today speaks to anyone who has loved something enough to want to see it live. For me, that is rugby. In 2015, this country will host the rugby world cup, one of the premier events in the sporting calendar. On the field, our teams will be doing their best to bring the cup to these shores, but who will be cheering them on from the stands? In an ideal world, the most committed fans will be rewarded with a chance to see a once-in-a-lifetime event—Wales becoming rugby world cup champions.
Many fans will be forced to pay sky-high prices in a rigged secondary market. I used to believe that ticket buying was a fair lottery where a quick phone call or a mouse click would give someone the chance to see their heroes. Unfortunately, all too often the true fans do not stand a chance. The touts have evolved from blokes in sheepskin jackets lurking outside stadiums trying to sell spare tickets to sophisticated people, harvesting thousands of tickets just seconds after they go on sale. These people have been described as power sellers. Using multiple credit cards and sometimes computer programmes called “botnets”, they are able to make thousands of attempts to get tickets each second, manipulating the market and claiming large pools of tickets.
This is a story that has been repeated across the country. Monty Python fans discovered that just three months ago. The much-anticipated comeback show sold out in 43.5 seconds. In 2012, the Rolling Stones attacked secondary sites after sky-high prices—up to £1,300 a ticket—meant that their 50th anniversary tour was littered with empty seats. Even the Chelsea Flower Show is not immune. Prince Harry’s attendance in 2013 saw record ticket sales, with £22 tickets going for as much as £466.
This Bill calls for two things. The rugby world cup should be designated an event of national significance, and it should be illegal to resell tickets for profit. For all other events, there should be a cap on the amount for which a ticket can be resold. We are letting down the fans by not giving them a chance of a fair deal. We must call time out, and stop new internet spivs fleecing honest fans.
To see what sort of prices the secondary sites command, I took a look at the prices for a rugby world cup game that I will be watching with great interest—Wales’ victory over England. Tickets are not even on sale yet, although the organisers have said that they will range from £75 for the cheaper seats to £315. However, a quick search on Google turned up a range of prominent secondary sites already offering tickets at prices ranging from £920 to £1,725. That kind of ticket touting is parasitic. It leeches off fans who are desperate to see their heroes and organisations that are charging fair prices.
The Rugby Football Union tells me that it puts every penny earned back into the game. It has ambitions to grow the sport as part of the rugby world cup legacy, just as the Olympics inspired our next generation of superstars. However, these grossly inflated ticket prices will not result in a single extra ball for a school's kit bag.
I have heard the argument that resales do not cost the event organisers a penny, as they have already earned the face value of the ticket. That could not be further from the truth. Kilimanjaro Live, an events promotion company, estimates its costs of policing resale of tickets to be more than £100,000 a year. The National Theatre spends tens of thousands a year, as does the RFU. The misleading nature of online ticket touting means that many people buy tickets believing that they are coming from fellow fans. The first web page they come to may be a secondary sales site and the uninitiated could believe that they are buying from the only outlet or paying a fair price, when really they are being ripped off. Unfortunately, despite evidence of touting in the secondary market, the Government refuse to designate the rugby world cup 2015 as a competition of national significance as was done for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.
Designating the games in such a way would make it illegal to resell tickets for the tournament. It is urgent that the Government act to protect genuine rugby fans from being exploited by online rip-off merchants. Tickets for the rugby world cup 2015 will be sent to rugby clubs in May and go on general sale this autumn. Even at this late stage, if the Government were to bring forward legislation to make the rugby world cup an event of national significance, Labour would give them their support.
Before I finish I would like to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and other colleagues in the all-party group on ticket abuse who are showing important leadership on consumer rights. Our concerns include the business practices by companies such as Viagogo. Just last night I pressed it on its supply of tickets from the power sellers and the public selling tickets they cannot use. Answer came there none. We are also concerned that the secondary market and its exorbitant prices are the only game in town thanks to mass ticket touting, and that there are links to organised crime as identified by police Operation Podium.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe we can only address the industrial ripping off of consumers with regulation. To deal with the power sellers, resale prices should be capped at say 10% or 20% of face value. Although that needs further discussion, our overall objective must be fairness to fans.
Fans need to know that they can buy a ticket in confidence without being gouged financially. When it comes to nationally significant events such as the rugby world cup, fans also need to know that if they cannot attend the event, they can sell their ticket back to the organisers and recoup the cost. The Bill would not stifle the right of the genuine fan to buy and sell tickets for most events at a fair price when they can no longer attend. Instead, real fans would get back the first-come, first-served fairness of buying direct. They would be protected from internet chicanery that is crowding them out and ripping them off. We need to end the market manipulation of sporting and cultural events in this country.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I rise to oppose the Bill not just because of the delusional prediction that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made about the forthcoming match between England and Wales but because of the nature of the Bill itself. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman starts by looking at the report, which was produced in the last Parliament, of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of which I was, and happily remain, a member. It found that the secondary ticketing market was perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, the Office of Fair Trading also concluded that the secondary ticket market worked in the interest of the consumer.
The hon. Gentleman might want to consider the evidence given to our Select Committee by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) when she was a Member of the previous Labour Government. She gave a particularly robust defence of the secondary market and why Labour did not want to interfere in it. He would be wise to read her evidence because it was compelling.
One misapprehension is that ticket touts and people in the secondary market are guaranteed to make a substantial profit, but that simply is not the case. For example, 50% of tickets sold on Viagogo are sold at face value or below and people can make a loss. As far as I am concerned, this is a matter of clear principle. If someone buys a ticket, that ticket belongs to them and they should be able to do what they please with it, just as they should with any other commodity that they buy. For argument’s sake, there are times on the high street when designer handbags come out in a limited edition. Some 30 or 40 may be available. It is first come, first served. People rush to the shops to snatch one. They then immediately put them on eBay to make a massive profit. I do not see what the difference is between that and selling on a ticket at an inflated price if demand outstrips supply.
That also happens with toys. One Christmas, Buzz Lightyear was an especially popular toy, so people bought the limited stock and immediately sold the toys on eBay at a huge profit. I do not understand why tickets should be treated differently, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to restrict people’s ability to resell any commodity above the price that they paid for it.
The hon. Gentleman fairly made the point—he then disagreed with it—that a promoter or organiser does not lose anything as a result of the secondary ticketing market. If a promoter puts on an event for which there are 50,000 tickets and charges £20 for each, they have decided that they want to realise £1 million from that event. After all the tickets have sold, that £1 million has been made, so whatever happens subsequently makes no difference to the event’s viability or that promoter. The hon. Gentleman talks about people spending money on policing the secondary market, but I suggest that they do not bother, because they then do not waste money doing so and can realise the amount that they get in the first place.
It is absolutely essential that there is a resale mechanism for tickets for the rugby world cup. The supporters of some of the successful rugby teams, such as the All Blacks, are likely to buy many of the tickets for the final in the expectation that their team will reach it. That might well be the case, but the All Blacks could equally find themselves knocked out in the semi-final, and if that happens, surely it would be in the best interests of the competition for there to be a mechanism through which New Zealand supporters may sell on their tickets to the supporters of the teams that reach the final. If those All Blacks supporters are not allowed to resell their tickets in the way that I would like, we will have the ridiculous situation that the crowd at the final is full of people who do not support either team, yet the people who want the tickets cannot buy them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about real fans, but I am not sure what the definition of a “real fan” is. I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if someone is prepared to pay £1,200, £1,500 or £2,000 for a ticket, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are a real fan. I do not understand the suggestion that selling tickets at inflated prices stops real fans attending events because if people are prepared to pay such prices, the chances are that they are especially keen fans. There is a simple premise that if someone does not want to pay the price that a seller asks, they should not do so. No one forces someone to pay an inflated price for a ticket—it is a free choice. If I decide at the last minute that I want to attend a sold-out event, the secondary market is the only place I can go to access a ticket. I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman wants to remove that choice from people. If I think that the price being asked is too high, I will just walk away and not attend, but at least I will have had a chance to go to that event, although I would have had no such opportunity without the secondary ticketing market.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the promoters of many events such as concerts do not offer people a refund if they buy a ticket but then find that they cannot attend. What on earth are such people supposed to do except the perfectly legitimate thing of selling their ticket to someone else?
If event promoters and sports organisers—perhaps the organisers of the rugby world cup—are so concerned about ticket touts and the secondary ticketing market, why do they not do something about it themselves? If they are worried, why do they put all the tickets on sale right from the word, go meaning that they sell out in 43.5 seconds, to use the Monty Python example that the hon. Gentleman cited? Why do they not sell a few tickets each week so that tickets are still available at face value in the week before the game or concert, meaning that no one would have to pay inflated prices through secondary ticketing? If this is such a big issue for the organisers of events, sporting fixtures and concerts, they could do something about it at the drop of the hat. However, they do not anything about it, which can only lead us to conclude that they are shedding crocodile tears and are actually rather pleased that they can sell all their tickets in 43.5 seconds because that is good for their cash flow and guarantees a sell-out. I do not think that organisers are as bothered about the situation as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe.
It is often said that public opinion favours restricting the secondary ticketing market, but let me share the results of ICM polling with the House. ICM asked people to agree or disagree with the statement:
“If I had a ticket to a sporting event, concert or other event that I could no longer use, then I should be allowed to resell it”—
and 86% agreed. Some 83% of people agreed with the statement:
“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it just as I can any other private property.”
Despite such agreement with that premise, the hon. Gentleman argues against it.
I am extremely proud of the fact that when I worked for Asda, before I entered the House, it challenged and overturned the net book agreement, under which publishers set a book’s price and no one could sell it at a different price without the publisher’s agreement. Overturning that agreement has driven down the price of books for consumers throughout the country, but the hon. Gentleman wants a system such as the net book agreement whereby event organisers sell tickets at a particular price and no one can sell them at a different price, which would represent a massive retrograde step for this country’s free market. The Office of Fair Trading concluded that such a system would not work in the best interests of the consumer, but the current arrangements do, as was endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I do not intend to press the motion to a Division, but I hope that the Minister has listened to my objections and that the Government will not go down the route that the hon. Gentleman encourages, which is a rabbit warren that it would be best to avoid.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Nick Smith, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Mike Weatherley, Roger Williams, Steve Rotheram, Julie Elliott, Chris Evans, Nic Dakin and Fiona O’Donnell present the Bill.
Nick Smith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 177).
Estimates Day
Estimates 2013-14
ministry of Defence
Defence and Cyber-security
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)
Given how long I have been in this House, I really ought to know whether I should be thanking the Backbench Business Committee, the Government, the Chair of the Liaison Committee or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my securing the debate. Just to be on the safe side, I will thank them all, and especially you.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend so early in his speech, but he makes a good point. In the old days, we had regular, sensible defence debates throughout the year, but they are now at the discretion of the Backbench Business Committee, which is a retrograde step.
Mr Arbuthnot
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but it rebounds slightly on the Defence Committee because we have been told that we are responsible for applying for such debates and, I have to confess, we have not done so in recent months, so perhaps we ought to revisit that.
The Defence Committee launched an inquiry into defence and cyber-security in January 2012, as part of a series of debates and inquiries looking into emerging threats. It was the first time the Committee had investigated cyber-security as a discrete topic, although in 2009 we had looked at Georgia and Estonia, and visited Talinn, as part of another inquiry. The UK Government had identified cyber-threats as one of four tier 1 risks to national security, and in November 2013 published a UK cyber-security strategy, updating their 2009 strategy and setting out four objectives: first, to make the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace; secondly, to make the UK more resilient to cyber-attack and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace; thirdly, to help to shape an open, vibrant and stable cyberspace that supports open societies; and fourthly, to build the UK’s cyber-security knowledge, skills and capability.
The programme is to be implemented via a four-year national cyber-security programme costing £650 million, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £210 million investment after the 2013 spending review. The funding is shared between the security and intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but most will be spent by the security and intelligence agencies.
During our inquiry, the Committee investigated whether the high profile given to the cyber-threat in the UK was matched by a coherent plan and a chain of command in the event of a major cyber-attack on our national infrastructure or our national interests. The complexity of the threat must be matched by an agile, many-layered response; accordingly, many different agencies are involved in the cyber-security effort, ranging across cybercrime, cyber-espionage and cyber-commerce. Cyber-security is therefore to some extent everybody’s responsibility, but we must avoid its ending up being nobody’s responsibility as a consequence. Someone has to be in charge.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is good to see so many colleagues here to take part in the debate. If we contrast the approach taken in the United States, where there is a unified structure under CYBERCOM, with the disparate approach taken in the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that we seem to have a number of lessons still to learn?
Mr Arbuthnot
Well, there are pluses and minuses to having a unified structure, and there are risks in having a siloed approach. I said this is the responsibility of everyone, and so it is. I shall explain how wide that responsibility extends.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Further to that, although a number of Departments have an interest, was my right hon. Friend assured by the MOD—within his sphere of responsibility—that there is a single individual in charge? I understood from reading his Committee’s report that the Joint Forces Commander is currently responsible, but the intention is to have the Chief of Defence Intelligence involved as well, and perhaps to appoint a three-star Defence Chief Information Officer. The report did not make it clear to me where we intend to go. The Americans have a four-star in charge. Is my right hon. Friend convinced that there will be an individual clearly responsible for the MOD’s part of the spectrum?
Mr Arbuthnot
Things have moved on since our Committee reported. There is somebody in overall command and that is my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will, I have no doubt, set out precisely how things have moved on when he responds to the debate. That is the purpose of Select Committee reports, and I am pleased about that.
The Committee was particularly concerned that the armed forces are now very dependent on information and communications technology and if those systems suffered a sustained cyber-attack, their ability to operate might be fatally compromised.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
We are talking about cyber-technology, but may I use an old-fashioned phrase in warning of the danger of having all our eggs in one basket?
Mr Arbuthnot
Yes, and I entirely agree. I have discovered a new organisation being set up in Cambridge called the centre for the study of existential risk, which is right up my street. Being a gloomy sort of person, that is precisely the sort of thing I am worried about, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I am already in deep contact with the centre.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I have heard of that work at the university of Cambridge, too, and I am in favour of it, but may I take my right hon. Friend back to his point on co-ordination? Surely the bottom line of the response to any major threat to this country, whether it is flooding or rioting and so on, is the armed forces. Does he share my concern that there seems to be no mechanism for referring problems in other sectors through to the MOD and, crucially, that there are no rehearsals taking place?
Mr Arbuthnot
I do, and I hope that in answering the debate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will take that point straight on the chin, because in many respects the armed forces are the resource of last resort, and cyber-security may be an area where the armed forces do not accept that responsibility.
There is a necessary focus within the defence world on securing the systems and networks needed by the MOD and the armed forces from cyber-threats. It is not only contemporary civil society that is utterly dependent on network technology; our armed forces are increasingly reliant on such technology for the tools of warfare, and the next step must be to ensure that the supply chain for those systems and their components is secure. That will require a trusting, transparent relationship between Government and their suppliers, with full disclosure of attacks and possible vulnerabilities, which runs all the way down the supply chain. The UK has world-class expertise and facilities on which to draw, but will the Government be able, in competition with the private sector, to keep enough of that expertise and experience in the service of the state? Are there enough such people to serve both and how should we prioritise?
The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in September 2013 about the establishment of a joint cyber reserve unit is a significant development, but that will rely on FTSE companies and other, smaller companies releasing key personnel to participate. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces tell us what progress has been made? According to the Government, the number of ICT and cyber-security professionals in the UK has not increased in line with the growth of the internet. Are there enough experts in industry willing to join a cyber reserve? Will technology experts—the geeks of our world—fit well within highly regimented military structures, or will a more flexible structure be required to facilitate their work?
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is rightly raising just some of the myriad questions about the future in cyberspace. Does he agree that these questions are so wide-ranging and fluid, given the incredible acceleration in technology, as to pose the question whether in future we should have vari-speed defence and security reviews? On larger items we should look beyond the 10-year horizon, but in cyber, five years is far too long for what is happening.
Mr Arbuthnot
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), the hon. Gentleman contributes effectively to the Defence Committee and makes an interesting point—one I had not heard before. That is the value of these debates. We will all have to think about that issue.
We must seek to defend ourselves, but we must also, as has been suggested, expect to develop a capability to respond to threats in cyberspace. When doing that, we face some of the same considerations as when developing conventional military capabilities. Where does the balance lie between international collaboration and sovereign capability, for example? What sort of international arrangements will best suit our aims?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also talked about how the UK was developing a full spectrum military cyber-capability, including strike capability. This is an interesting and novel declaration. Everybody knows it has happened but nobody has been prepared before now to announce it. Will this declaration act as a deterrent or will it make the UK a more likely target for hacktivists and foreign states? What about the legal implications of establishing a strike capability for the personnel involved? The necessary rules of engagement for cyber-attack need to be put in place, although of course we will not be told about them.
Some maintain that cyber is just another military domain and that we can expect to do everything in cyberspace that we do in the air, on land or at sea to prevent, deter coerce or intervene. But has the distinctiveness of the cyber domain been fully grasped? It is not clear, for example, that deterrence is a concept that can apply to a domain where there are real difficulties in discovering quickly who has perpetrated an attack and for what purpose, or even that an attack has taken place. Neither is it clear that everyone has grasped how important it is to avoid a silo approach to the cyberworld. It is essential to break down the dividing lines between civilian and military, among Government Departments, between Government and the private sector, and between our country and other countries, and therefore to approach the issue in an holistic way. Paul Dwyer of Mandiant came to brief the Defence Committee and told us that it takes a network to defeat a network.
Perhaps because the threat cannot be neatly categorised, it may be unrealistic to expect a neat categorisation of the responses. Everything we have been told in the UK emphasises that the armed forces have a very limited role, protecting their own systems and developing military cyber-capabilities. For other areas of activity, those in the lead are likely to be based elsewhere, particularly in the intelligence services. That is where the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury comes in.
Mr Gray
My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the threat being so diverse as to be difficult to counter. None the less, the briefing we were given by Mandiant was very interesting: there are a large number of extremely serious attacks, not by a lot of people but by one or two groups. He even named Unit 61398 of the People’s Liberation Army as one of the main culprits. In other words, it would be reasonably easy for the British Government and the MOD to counter a specific attack such as that.
Mr Arbuthnot
I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the Government are well aware of where some of these attacks are coming from. I do not agree that it would be relatively easy to counter them, because these threats are developing at a frightening speed, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said. The diversity and development of these threats is changing on a second-by-second basis.
I am pleased to say that the Government are taking action to make the UK more resilient to cyber-attacks. It has established a new computer emergency response team in early 2014, CERT-UK, to improve the co-ordination of national cyber-incidents and to share technical information among countries. The Government set up a new cyber-incident response scheme in GCHQ to help organisations recover from a cyber-security attack. They have extended the remit of the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure—the CPNI—to work with all organisations that may have a role in protecting the UK’s critical systems and intellectual property. They have agreed with regulators in essential services a set of actions to make sure that important data and systems in our critical national infrastructure continue to be safe and resilient. As I have said, responsibility for cyber-security rests principally with companies and organisations themselves. Government agencies’ roles will be limited by available resources and national priorities.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difficulty in making cyber-security just a defence issue and saying that the issue lies with companies? There is a network of things that need to combine, and we have not yet developed a system to create resilience across the spectrum; there are only chimneys of responsibility.
Mr Arbuthnot
The hon. Lady is quite right. We are groping towards it, but we are not quite there. One of the benefits of this debate, of our report and of the Government’s response is to help us move to a better place.
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend makes an important connection between the business community and state operations. I am concerned that state operations do not have the funds to attract the necessary expertise—geeks, my right hon. Friend called them—when they are in demand in the civilian sector. Banks and so forth pay huge sums of money to make sure they are able to fight off any cyber-security issue. Does he agree with a stance that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) might take—that there is a need to make sure that those in the reserve forces who actually have such skill sets through working in businesses can work in the MOD as well?
Mr Arbuthnot
I would have entirely agreed, but the problem may be whether there are enough reserves and enough people with those skills in the country at all. Let us move on towards that.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
To deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that was one of the key factors in the strategic defence and security review of 2010. The then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), said that we needed to see “up arrows” and “down arrows”. Heavy armour was a down arrow but cyber was an up arrow. Some £500 million was set aside specifically for this purpose, so it has been identified as a serious and important area for investment.
Mr Arbuthnot
Interestingly, the Prime Minister, in giving evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, pointed out that some of the areas had cuts but that this area was one of growth. His regret was that it had not been one of greater growth, and that that change had not been more exaggerated than it was.
I ought to bring my remarks to a close, as others want to speak. Paul Dwyer told the Committee that the willingness of companies to share information about cyber attacks with one another and with the Government is critical to allowing an effective response to be developed and implemented but, while critical, it is far from easy to achieve.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am a little concerned that my right hon. Friend is bringing his arguments to a close, because he touched on one point that I was rather hoping he would develop. He said that the Committee visited Estonia. For people who, like me, were not part of the Committee’s study, it would be extremely helpful to know in concrete terms a little more about what it discovered on that visit about what a cyber-attack by a hostile neighbour can really mean.
Mr Arbuthnot
The Committee visited Estonia in 2009. It has still not been conclusively established who precisely was responsible for the attacks that took down much of that country’s banking system, although we have our suspicions—they may have been marching around in unmarked uniforms. We discovered that the attack had been comparatively easy to achieve. It was a distributed denial-of-service attack that did real damage. We also discovered the international centre of excellence in Estonia, which at that stage the Government were not contributing towards in dealing with cyber-attacks. I am delighted that they have since decided, perhaps as a result of our incredibly effective report, to contribute to the centre.
Sir Bob Russell
I was biding my time, but the intervention from the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has prompted me to intervene. Has any evidence yet come forward to suggest that what is going on in Crimea has involved cyber-security breaches either way?
Mr Arbuthnot
If there is evidence of that, I do not yet know of it. All I can say is that before the invasion of Georgia there was an extensive cyber-attack on its computer network that was very similar to the one on Estonia. I suspect that it is now a new method of fighting wars that we must all get used to.
The need to share information is critical, as I have said, and important mechanisms for that exist, such as the cyber-security information sharing partnership, which is now open to companies beyond critical national infrastructure sectors, including small and medium-sized businesses. CISP analysts will be expected to feed into CERT once it is fully operational.
The Committee produced many recommendations, but our final conclusion was that the cyber-threat, like other emerging threats, has the capacity to evolve with almost unimaginable speed and with serious consequences for the nation’s security. The Government need to put in place—they have not yet done so—mechanisms, people, education, skills, thinking and policies that take into account both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities that cyber presents. It is time the Government approached the subject with vigour. I am pleased to see the actions that they have taken since we issued our report. Clearly there is much more to be done—in the cyber world it is a matter of constantly playing catch-up—but I personally have the impression that the Government are, at the very least, joining in the game.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of Members wish to speak this afternoon and that the time available is limited. Rather than imposing a formal time limit, I thought that I might try an experiment. I wish to see whether Members have the ability to be courteous to one another by limiting their speeches to around 10 minutes.
Mr Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I would first like to say something about the debate. I agree that the Defence Committee is perhaps remiss in not applying for debates more regularly. This debate is taking place on an estimates day. It is a really serious debate that should be taking place in the Chamber in its own right. Our report is now more than 12 months old—it was published in January 2013—which says something about how quickly these things move. The Government published their response in March 2013 and then made a series of announcements last September, but here we are today with the first opportunity to talk about it. That is an issue we need to look at.
I will not repeat what my colleague who chairs the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), said about structure, but I would like to say something about structure, about investment—we are talking about money, after all—and about accountability. The statement made in September was very interesting from two points of view. First, it set out a structure for how the Ministry of Defence, along with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office and others—this cannot be done in isolation—can start to look at its relationship with industry and at protecting itself through its relationships with the rest of the British community. I think that is hugely important.
There is a lot of work being done on achieving proper standards. We took evidence from industry representatives on that, and they were all over the shop, frankly. For example, they did not want standards, or they wanted their own standards. The question of standards is absolutely at the guts of the whole issue of defining cyber, and not just for the Ministry of Defence. Industry must now have a compliance process with the Ministry of Defence, and I am sure that the Minister will say something about how that is to be done. That is hugely welcome, because it is vital. How we then do that in relation to our allies, NATO, the EU, the French—with our treaty—and others is a big issue that needs proper discussion. We need to have proper compliance and assurance mechanisms, as we do with our “Five Eyes” colleagues and many others, because we are all trying to understand the process.
Most people go to Wikipedia when they do not know much about something, as I did with cyber-warfare, because the announcement in September also mentioned having some sort of offensive capability. Wikipedia states:
“Not to be confused with Electronic warfare… Cyberwarfare refers to politically motivated hacking to conduct sabotage and espionage. It is a form of information warfare sometimes seen as analogous to conventional warfare.”
Well, that is terribly helpful. What we know is that there is no clear definition, either domestically or internationally. We are all fishing for something to help us understand this properly, and we should have some humility in that. However, we recognise its interconnectivity.
Let me turn to the statement on having offensive capability. It was very brave of the UK Government to make that statement. We are the first country to come out and say that. I have spoken with some of our international allies about that, and they say, “Well, that’s a very interesting statement for the Brits to make.” How we actually do that will be a matter for discussion. I am not necessarily against the investment or the capability, but I think that we need to be very clear about what we are saying and how we are going to do things. There will need to be a doctrine and rules of engagement. If we are saying that this is a new domain, I do not think that we can run away from some of these questions. If we do and we keep it too secret, we will lose legitimacy for the activities that we wish to undertake. That is a difficult balancing act, but it is absolutely crucial.
If we are to weaponise the process, how will we do that? There is a lot of talk about countries using the Stuxnet virus in Iran. That was actually delivered physically on a memory stick. The programme then searched out the thing it wanted to destroy or debilitate. It was a hugely expensive exercise. I do not know how much it cost, because I am not supposed to know who did it. Well, we do not know who did it, or we all suspect that we know. Whoever did it, it was not a bunch of amateurs; it was someone who could put substantial investment into it. It turned out to be a one-shot weapon.
If we are to weaponise this area, we must be clear that it will cost money. This sort of activity cannot be done by a boy working in his bedroom to come up with a fancy programme. We will have to invest in the process of weaponisation alongside all the other things we are talking about. How will we procure, what will we do with regard to research and technology, and how will we keep a sovereign capability in these areas? I suspect that those are big questions that Parliament will be discussing for many years to come.
Mr Brazier
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that the issue is about not only the technical side but the personal side? More medieval fortresses fell through the inside touch than through outside assault. In the high-tech area, as everywhere else, people can be bought or suborned.
Mr Havard
The short answer is yes. The other aspect is who can be engaged to help to do such things. As the hon. Gentleman, who is on the Defence Committee, will know, the structuring of things to ensure a reserve capability is hugely important. The way in which the process is being put together is correct; there will be no monopoly on understanding in the areas we are discussing. We need as good a collaboration as possible. The delivery of the processes will not always be remote. Intelligence and knowing what is happening, where and with whom will be crucial. I shall come to that later.
The other question that comes up is about the law—I mentioned legitimacy earlier. I am helping to lead a sub-study in the Defence Committee of the military and the law. That is coloured, obviously, by Supreme Court decisions, individual cases and all the rest of it. The issue raises questions about international law, humanitarian law, extra-territorial jurisdiction and other things. An argument is being put that says, “We don’t need anything to be separate. This is a different domain, but all the current legal constructs are good enough and we do not need anything different.” I come back to my earlier point. We need to be clear about doctrine. In large part, our doctrine is public. Some, however, may not be as public as we would like, but we need to be clear about how we do things.
Ms Gisela Stuart
We seem to accept that cyber can be not just defensive, but offensive—we can use it offensively. Does my hon. Friend think that our domestic legal structure is sufficient to deal with cyber as an offensive weapon and to contain the power of the Executive to apply that weapon?
Mr Havard
I do not know, but in the sense that I think I do know, I think that our legal structure is not sufficient and needs revision. I may be wrong, but that debate has to take place and people more qualified than I am need to comment.
It is interesting to note where our allies are. The United States has and has not made all sorts of declarations. If we believe The New York Times, there was a secret legal review that concluded:
“US military forces could legally launch an attack on digital infrastructure located in a foreign country if it found evidence of a threat against its own systems”.
A rules of engagement debate then starts. That is the other difficult bit—we will have to have rules of engagement for such activity. The more we discuss legitimacy in law for these things, the better. If we do not have such a discussion, the issue will be forced on us. That is what we are seeing now in a lot of other areas, so we should structure how we wish to have the debate rather than having a structure imposed on us.
Proportionality is at the guts of the whole business of international law, human rights and legitimacy. We have to show that proportionality is there and that we have mechanisms and systems to ensure that it is. Simply claiming that it is there will not be good enough.
We are not on our own. We need to be joined up not only internally within the United Kingdom, but internationally. We do not have time to go fully into this now, but it is interesting to see Russia’s current adventures in Ukraine. In September 2011, Russia and China said to a UN group that they wanted a code of conduct for cyberspace that would include requirements for co-operation in
“curbing dissemination of information which incites terrorism, secessionism, extremism or undermines other countries’ political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment”.
Well, there we are—now we know. Translating that into current events will tell us a lot. That proposed code of conduct was about closing things down and giving legitimacy to the avoidance of dissent and to having systems that are less rather than more open. How we collaborate in this area will be important.
When he was Secretary of Defence in America, Bob Gates said that he could protect .mil, .gov, .org or .com, but that as the protection systems were put in, the public might not like what they saw on .com. That debate is not only to do with defence, but defence has a place in it. Whether there should be a code of conduct and the international arrangements are problematic issues, but there is a growing urgency around them.
At the end of the day, the issue can be about the collection of raw information and the sending of viruses to blow up particular equipment. That is the geeky stuff—the weaponisation and the sexy stuff that the press love. However, at the end of the day, those and other actions are only as good as the intelligence that exists to put them into effect. One area of investment that must not be lost in the question of cyber-issues is defence intelligence. In my opinion, we have the best intelligence analysts and they need to be developed.
We can collect the raw information, but if we do not understand it we will go nowhere with it and make the wrong decision. Investment discussions should please not just be about technical toys, GCHQ and all the stuff about weapons; they should also be about intelligence analysts. Let us protect the capability. The issue is about a whole force, but also about a whole community. Those people are vital in that community and investment also needs to go to them.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I welcome the chance to debate the UK’s cyber-security defence. Cyber-security is a particularly wide-ranging subject and cyber-attacks are a growing threat. Without stating the obvious, a cyber-attack could impact on everyone’s lives in many ways. We are now all very reliant on technology and the internet; without our mobile phones or when our e-mail goes down, we almost cease to function.
A major cyber-attack on any of this country’s main utilities, such as transport, energy or the banking system, would cause chaos. It would be, at the very least, very bad for the economy; it could, in the worst-case scenario—if we did not have the means to transport food and fuel, for example—cause social breakdown in a short time. South Korea, for instance, has suffered huge jamming attacks, launched by North Korea, against its GPS systems. They affected major airports and shipping lanes. The travel of more than 1,000 ships and 250 planes was disrupted by North Korean jamming attacks in 2012.
Cyber-security needs to protect us against many threats: criminals attacking personal data, small-scale political activists—or hacktivists, as somebody said earlier—and state-sponsored hostilities. The Government’s cyber-security strategy is along the right lines and has led to the national cyber-security programme, which has clear objectives.
Cyberspace is often compared to the wild west and thought by some to be beyond the rule of law. However, our Government have made it clear that it is not and they have encouraged law enforcement teams to use the existing legal framework to prosecute. When cyber-crime emanates from overseas, the Government are working with the G8, the United Nations, NATO and the European Union to help shape the standards and norms of behaviour for cyberspace. Obviously, the solutions have not all yet been found but the discussions are ongoing and the work is slowly evolving. I am pleased that the work has started in earnest.
Part of the solution is a normal, sensible protocol for cyber-security on the domestic agenda and it can be addressed through simple best practice. There is a knowledge gap and the Government are addressing it in the long term via the development of education in cyber-security: teaching materials on cyber-security are being produced for GCSE and A-level students. Academic centres for cyber-security have been set up in 11 universities. Investment in education are far-sighted and will position the UK with experts in the cyber-security arena.
The Government have also gone some way to engaging with industry by setting up the Cyber-Security Information Sharing Partnership. Furthermore, the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, or CPNI, is working with businesses to encourage them to make cyber-security a board-level responsibility. The current work on the development of an official cyber-standard will help stimulate the adoption of good cyber-practices among businesses. Given the risks to our infrastructure as a whole, the Government have highlighted the role of regulators in overseeing the adoption of robust cyber-security measures. The companies that supply essential services such as power, telecommunications, water, transport and banking, need maximum protection.
I praise the many organisations that are tasked with upholding the Government’s cyber-defence plans. However, as has been said, the threat is so great that I worry that as a nation we are not doing enough, fast enough. An industry study produced by BT last month found that British companies are lagging way behind rivals in other major countries in addressing cyber-security risks. The survey found that only 17% of UK businesses see cyber-security as a priority compared with 41% in the US. Nearly 90% of directors and decision makers in the US are given IT security training, but in the UK it is only around 37%.
On defence, our armed forces are among the most technologically advanced in the world, and I am sure we are all proud of that. In theory, that allows us to put fewer of our people in harm’s way and their lives at risk. However, as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) said recently, it makes every aspect of our military capability vulnerable to cyber-attack. Obviously, there is no point spending millions on developing leading-edge technology without the cyber-security to stop it being felled by a single cyber-attack.
The Defence Committee noted that the Army has between 35% and 40% too few corporals and sergeants to man its cyber-capabilities. The Government have rightly set up a joint cyber-unit for the reserve forces, which was going well towards the end of the year, and others have said that the reserve forces will play a crucial role in our future capability. The Government have instigated broadly sensible long-term solutions such as apprenticeships to fill the staff-skills gap in industry and business, but how can we attract more trained staff immediately, especially in the defence reserve?
A further concern is that the threat is so wide and imminent that the command structure is not resilient. I understand that the global operations security control centre at Corsham has been empowered to take rapid action without direction from above to defend the MOD’s own networks from attack. That is great, but with the many groups set up to implement the UK cyber-strategy, how will one section know what the others are doing when an attack has happened?
Mr Gray
We are all pleased to see my hon. and gallant Friend back in full working order. The GOSCC is in my constituency, and does an outstanding job in providing cyber-security for the MOD. Is he not concerned, as I am, that with the plethora of Government and MOD organisations with responsibility for cyber-matters, the expertise of GOSCC is being undermined by a variety of quangos and committees whose exact function is clouded in mystery?
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. Within the chaos of a potential attack, I am not sure how the disparate groups would communicate with one another, how there would be a uniform chain of command and how it would work in practice. GCHQ seems to be in charge, but in other countries the matter would fall under the Ministry of Defence. It is fine that the MOD seems to be still developing its own basic cyber-security techniques with the armed forces setting up separate units, but it is the responsibly of the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure to take the lead in co-ordinating a UK response to a major cyber-security incident.
An extremely clear command structure will be needed to deal with a cyber-attack, which may come from a political group such as the group that claimed that the Sochi games were being held on the graves of millions of people who had been murdered and that was, according to the US Government’s computer emergency readiness team, threatening companies financing or supporting the Sochi winter games with cyber-attacks.
The response would be different if an attack was state-sponsored, but it would be extremely difficult, especially in the first day or so, to determine where the threat came from and whether it came from an individual or a country. The internet is worldwide and even if we knew where the attack came from geographically, it would be difficult to identify who was behind it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am pleased to be able to give my hon. and gallant Friend a pause to think what he is going to say next. When Mandiant briefed us last week, we were told by Paul Dwyer that 66% of our companies take about 243 days to realise that they are subject to what he called an advanced persistent threat, and that some companies have no idea that they are being attacked and will never find out.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpfully timed intervention. He is absolutely right. Sometimes it is difficult or impossible to determine that an attack has taken place.
On offensive cyber-capability and action, a recent article published by the Royal United Services Institute said that Stuxnet, the malware supposedly used to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons capability, was not successful in delaying Iran’s technical progress. With hindsight, some have seen Stuxnet as a hindrance to diplomatic solutions. I am not sure I entirely agree with that analysis, but it is interesting. Cyber-space is being described as the fifth domain of warfare, so its defence and protection from attack are integral to the operation of our nation’s defence infrastructure.
My last point is whether we are spending enough, which is not an easy subject in a time of fiscal austerity. Last week, Chuck Hagel, the US Secretary of Defence, outlined a vision for a leaner US defence posture with reductions in the US army to a pre-1942 position. However, at the same time, he rightly proposed increased spending on cyber-defence.
Ms Gisela Stuart
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the size of the reduction in the US army is exactly the same as the size of our entire Army?
Jack Lopresti
Yes, I agree, but obviously we are talking about different scales.
I am fully aware that the issues I have raised today are not easily solved, but I fully commend the Government for the progress they have made so far.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is usual for hon. Members to stand up to indicate that they wish to speak. It makes the life of the Chair rather difficult if no one does so. I was about to draw the debate to a close.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not standing up. I thought the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) had sat down to take an intervention, but slowly it came to my mind that he had finished his speech.
It is an honour to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I share his concern about an attack on our national infrastructure, but we sometimes focus on things such as banking and transport when we should perhaps look at our food supplies or our hospitals. The impact of such an attack on the civilian population and the country’s morale would be huge. We must address resilience to a cyber-attack and we must engage the civilian population in understanding and preparing for that.
T he Chairman of the Defence Committee and I were given a book for holiday reading: “One Second After”. That delightful read, which probably wrecked my summer, was a description of the United States after an electro-magnetic impulse attack had taken out all its computer-based systems. Everything went. No cars could go on the road and nothing would work. It was a scary prospect and I now understand why the Defence Committee’s Chairman runs a car that does not have a computer in it. I am sure the book was a great influence in the decision to purchase that car.
The book also made me aware of the very narrow issue of who is the enemy. In traditional warfare, we tend to know who we are fighting, but in future we may be fighting criminals who are holding the country to ransom. We could be fighting terrorists, because a state is not needed to manufacture a cyber-attack, or activists or anarchists. It has been suggested that some of the attacks in Estonia were by third-party actors. At the bottom of the list is the potential for a state to attack, because states like rules and the rest do not follow rules. That is why they must be our focus, our worry and our concern.
A statement made in 2012 informed us:
“Our cyber defences blocked around 400,000 advanced, malicious cyber threats against the government’s secure intranet alone”.
On the whole, we do not know where those threats are coming from. We do know that the Government have given a commitment to having full-spectrum capability in dealing with cyber-attacks. In fact, in response to the growing number of cyber-attacks, the Secretary of State said that
“we are developing a full-spectrum military cyber capability, including a strike capability, to enhance the UK’s range of military capability. Increasingly, our defence budget is being invested in high-end capabilities such as cyber and intelligence and surveillance assets to ensure we can keep the country safe.”
I was very interested in that statement, so it sent me off on a little tangent, as such things often do.
As the Minister, who has received many of my quirky little requests for information, will know, I sent off a parliamentary question to every Department asking them how many specialist IT staff they employed who had a PhD in computer science, who had a master’s degree in computer science, and perhaps who even had just a basic bachelor’s degree in computer science. It did not bode well, I have to say. The Ministry of Defence can rest on its laurels; it came second to the Department for Work and Pensions, with 1,625 such members of staff. None of the Departments could break the information down by qualification across Departments, which could explain why Government are not very good at commissioning cyber-capability and improved computer networking capability. Only 5,088 people, in total, held a degree-level capability in computing. It was depressing to note that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had only three people with such a qualification, so we should watch out for its contracting.
Ms Gisela Stuart
Given the logic of Government, did my hon. Friend also ask whether the people with a computing degree actually worked in such areas beforehand or did something completely different?
Mrs Moon
I did, and most Departments responded that they worked in specialist teams, as we would expect.
Interestingly, the response from Her Majesty’s Treasury told us that a total of 48 people are employed within its centralised IT department, or teams. Those staff provide IT services to the Cabinet Office and to the Treasury. That compares with 57 people in 2008 who worked exclusively within the Treasury, so the numbers are going down, and that has to be a matter of concern. As people with these skills are increasingly highly valued in the marketplace, can Government stay ahead of the market in being able to recruit them?
I was worried about the budget and looked into that aspect. We have heard about the figure of £650 million over five years, which is a mere fraction of the figure for the annual economy, which is set to lose £27 billion every year to criminal activity in the cyber-realm. In contrast, the US Department of Defence has outlined a $23 billion spend on cyber operations in the financial year of 2018 alone.
I thought that I would then have a look at how well we were doing in this area. I discovered, rather alarmingly, that the Government had withdrawn from a new cyber-warfare project called Project Cipher, which was intended fully to scrutinise complex programmes to ensure that they had the potential to meet our needs. After thorough assessment, it was decided that Cipher would not meet the full defence capability required to offer long-term value for the taxpayer, and so the programme was not taken forward. The costs of the stalled project, in the assessment phase alone, had been £66 million, so we have lost a large percentage of the money set aside for cyber, and they were £47 million above the original budget. Overall, this was a major disaster. IHS Janes has said that the project was
“intended to renew the MoD’s cryptographic inventory and automate its crypto-key management systems by replacing obsolete current systems to prevent encoded communication links being compromised.”
I understood half that sentence. The important bit is that it was intended to replace obsolete current systems, because Departments are not good at replacing obsolescent systems. They tend to work things for the length of a Parliament, which is now five years, when we all know that these computers are dying on their feet after about the first two years.
IHS Janes continued:
“The delays in bringing Cipher online are creating capability risks, says the NAO, because the ministry’s existing crypto capability lacks the flexibility to deliver the flagship Network Enabled Capability project, which aims to link up a wide range of military communication networks. This means efficiency savings relating to the automation of crypto capability has been delayed, leading to increased demands on military manpower.”
It explained that the problems with Cipher’s design first emerged during an assessment phase and that they were the result of the lack of suitably qualified experienced civil servants—you will be surprised to hear that, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the essential things that we must do if we are to be responsible in looking to the defence of this country is to find the way to employ and retain the capability that we need within government to provide the skills and oversee the systems that we operate to keep this country secure.
There has been considerable discussion about having a cyber reserve. I have had conversations with a number of companies that have told me that they are very worried about their employees joining the reserves because they fear for them when they have to travel abroad. Many international companies work around the globe, and they worry about someone who has been in our cyber reserve and transfers to work in another country, or merely travels through a country perhaps on business or on holiday, being prone to personal attack because of the information they would hold not only on their company but on the UK’s cyber-defence capability. I hope the Minister is aware of that concern and will address it.
This is perhaps one of the most urgent and pressing issues affecting this country. We have to take it seriously across every Government Department, but we also have to alert our citizens to the fact that they are now on the front line, because the attack may come from their personal computer, which could be hacked and used for an attack not only on this Government, but on other Governments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members are not doing terribly well on the supposedly self-imposed 10-minute time limit. Perhaps if they were to aim for nine or eight and a half minutes, we might be more on target.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I will do my best, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with the conclusion of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon): this is an extremely important issue and addressing cyber-security rightly sits at the top of our national security agenda. Cybercrime and cyber-attacks are not only tomorrow’s dangers; they are a very real and growing threat today. As others have already made clear, Governments, business and members of the public come under sustained attack from cyber-criminals and foreign powers. There were an estimated 44 million incidents in 2011 alone.
As we become ever more reliant on the internet, our vulnerability increases. Cyber-threats take two primary forms—cybercrime and cyber-attack, although sometimes the distinction is blurred. Cybercrime was estimated by the Association of Chief Police Officers to have cost £57 billion globally back in 2009, while Detica estimated that the 2011 figure for the United Kingdom alone was £27 billion. It is difficult to believe that that there has not been a geometric increase since then.
Large-scale cybercrime is an issue of national security. Cyber-attack and cyber-espionage also present a serious threat both to the state and to the community, and the state should be acting to protect both. As we know, cyber-attacks have had real-world effects, as exampled by the denial-of-service attacks in Estonia in 2007 and the Stuxnet attack on Iranian nuclear development capability, although there appear to be disagreements about the degree of its effectiveness.
Cyber-espionage and theft of sensitive information is another major concern, so addressing the danger of cyber-threats today is real, not academic. The Security Service estimates that at least 20 foreign intelligence agencies currently operate to some degree against British interests. That threat merits our immediate and strong attention, which is why I welcome this debate and the attention the Defence Committee has given to the subject.
Mr Blunt
Given the amount of time I have left, I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way to him. If I have time at the end, I will come back to him.
What is being done and developed in the strategy? In 2009, the previous Government produced Britain’s first cyber-security strategy, which, though laudable for initiating a centralised approach to cyber-security, I as the then shadow Minister critiqued as being a shallow copy of the then American strategy. I said:
“Minimal or no attention is given to key areas such as co-ordination of the new cyber-structures with existing agencies, response to a cyber incident and information sharing between government, industry”
and international action. I also said:
“There is no consideration within the strategy of how we would respond to a cyber-attack. No mention can be found of a framework for response or who would lead it. There is no discussion of issues such as back-up communications networks for security and emergency personnel.”
All of those were given coverage in the United States review at the time.
Given the severity of the threat, the then Opposition felt that the strategy was an inadequate response, so before the general election we produced our own paper on cyber-security and keeping Britain safe in the digital age. I am pleased to say that much of it found itself in the Government’s 2011 cyber-security strategy, which is currently being co-ordinated by the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance.
The strategy is far more detailed than its predecessor and offers a more thorough, co-ordinated and ambitious programme to enhance our cyber-security. The recent progress report from the Cabinet Office highlights the successes in implementing the strategy and the progress made towards achieving its objectives by 2015. I commend the strategy for its scope and ambition, incorporating everything from changes to law enforcement to greater co-operation and information-sharing with the private sector and enhancing our cyber-resilience. That the strategy also balances the attainment of security with civil liberties is reassuring.
Mr Gray
Everything my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. The Ministry of Defence, of course, has no responsibility whatsoever for this. Is my hon. Friend therefore proposing that the things he is describing perfectly adequately should now become part of a defence cyber-strategy, or is he talking about something other than the topic of this debate?
Mr Blunt
My hon. Friend, in his usual perspicacious way, has identified precisely what I am moving on to, but before I finish on the wider cyber-security issue, I want to recognise the contribution made by the Baroness Neville-Jones in pulling this strategy together and much improving our country’s response.
No strategy, however, is incapable of improvement and the Government still appear to preside over a patchwork muddle of agencies and mandates responsible for cyber-security. In 2011, the Intelligence and Security Committee identified 18 different actors with responsibilities for cyber-security, which raises concerns about duplication, cost-effectiveness and confusion. I note the counterpoint expressed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who said in evidence to the Defence Committee that although the arrangement is untidy, it is effective, given the need for a cross-Government approach. I must say that, in the absence of a personality as strong as Baroness Neville-Jones, there remain issues about co-ordination and leadership, as was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti).
We must recognise that the updated cyber-security strategy is a major step forward, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) has made clear, defence is only one small component of the pan-Government effort and by no means the most important. I wonder whether the bracketing of cyber-security and defence is in fact wise, given the MOD’s relatively limited role. The MOD has only two formal responsibilities: to ensure that armed forces operability is maintained both at home and abroad by securing its networks, and to enhance military operations by developing future cyber-capabilities.
Cyber-capability is immensely important for the armed forces: it is a battle-winning asset. In the same way that military operations become difficult if not impossible without air supremacy, cyber-superiority if not cyber-supremacy is required. What differentiates cyber-security is that it also applies to nearly every aspect of modem civil life. Not many businesses need to worry about the effectiveness of the F-35 and the Eurofighter in their daily operations, but the defensive cyber-capability is a daily national necessity for our financial system. Defence against most high-end cyber-threats, including those to critical national infrastructure, is the responsibility of other Departments, not least GCHQ and the Centre for Protection of National Infrastructure. Given that fact, the conflation of cyber-security with defence is possibly misleading, in that it obscures a complex and much bigger picture. However, we are debating cyber-security in the context of defence, so I shall focus on that.
Other hon. Members have outlined the threat, so I simply want to say that the armed forces are increasingly vulnerable to highly targeted forms of cyber-attack, given the networked nature of modern military systems and the increased use of unmanned aerial vehicles and robots on the battlefield. Adversaries may seek signals interception to distort intelligence, disrupt logistical supply chains or, most worryingly, render major platforms and systems, such as ships and aircraft, dysfunctional. If we now regard cyber as a fifth domain of warfare, we must expect other countries to do so too. Britain is a world leader in defence technology, but we must expect emerging powers to be keen to shrink the development gap by stealing what they cannot easily or quickly develop for themselves. The need to protect the operability of our armed forces and the integrity of our defence establishment is thus abundantly clear.
Of the £650 million set aside to transform Britain’s national cyber-security capabilities over the next four years, the MOD will receive £90 million. That funding is not intended to secure MOD networks, because that is assumed to be business as usual, but I know that the Department is securing its supply chain against cyber-attack. The point has already been made about the importance of the need for a resilient industrial base, which must form part of the goal of the national cyber-security strategy. The MOD has responsibility to help to manage the security of its suppliers, and I note the work that has been done to that effect.
I also note the emphasis on reserve forces, which other hon. Members have mentioned, and I welcome the establishment of a joint cyber reserve unit. That is exactly the sort of imaginative use of civilian-qualified reservists in the armed forces that we will want in times of need, but we must bear it in mind that if the armed forces need them at a time of crisis, so will their host employers. On a separate point, I am encouraged by the assurance that spending on cyber will automatically be increased in the budgets of future programmes.
Cyber is part of how our armed forces will wage war in future, so the Department must be able to continue to enhance its military cyber-capabilities. I therefore want to touch briefly on cyber-attack. Inevitably, developments in technology will always be highly classified because the possessor of the latest technological advance is likely to have a battle-winning capability. I therefore understand why information in this area is restricted. However, I emphasise to the Minister that the military should understand that this House expects them to possess cyber-attack capability alongside the ability to defend their own networks from cyber-attack.
This area is highly sensitive because such technology can be applied against other states’ non-military assets in a way that makes it difficult to be clear about whether the laws of war apply. I will finish by discussing this international aspect. This area sits in the grey area between espionage and conflict. That is why, in 2009, I called for us to co-operate internationally on cyber issues to regulate the relations between states in respect of cyber-conflict. I am delighted that that is recognised in the 2013 statement on aspects of state behaviour in cyberspace. We must try to identify the future international rules of the road that will govern relations between states in this area.
I will end by reiterating three questions. First, by bracketing cyber-security with defence, are we in danger of misleading ourselves about where the main effort needs to be? Secondly, can the lead responsibility for cyber-security be made clearer? Thirdly, are we affording enough resources to research and development in this vital area?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Despite the presence of the new clocks to aid Members in calculating how long they have been speaking, and despite the fact that Members have been asked to keep their speeches to 10 minutes or less, we are left with six speakers and only 40 minutes to go. There is now an eight-minute time limit and the clock will count it down for Members. It might be necessary to revisit the limit to ensure that every Member who has been sitting in the Chamber patiently is able to participate.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
The growth of the internet has, without question, transformed our everyday lives. I say that as someone who spent many years working for a multinational corporation that introduced every home to the personal computer and introduced the business world to the speed of the e-mail. The importance of the internet is underlined by the part that it plays in our economy. The internet-related market in the UK is estimated to be worth £82 billion a year.
However, with greater openness, interconnection and dependence on technology comes greater vulnerability. To put that in perspective, cyber-attacks have been categorised as a tier 1 threat to the UK’s national security, which puts them up there with international terrorism, military crises and natural disasters. The threats to our national security from cyber-attacks are therefore real and growing.
Terrorists, rogue states and cyber-criminals are among those who are targeting computer systems in the UK. That is highlighted by the fact that 93% of large corporations and 87% of small businesses have reported a cyber-breach in the past year. Performing an attack need not be expensive. With minimal equipment in the right hands, a lot of damage can be done. However, protection against such attacks does not come cheap. The cost of a cyber-security breach can be between £450,000 and £850,000 for a large business and between £35,000 and £65,000 for small and medium-sized businesses, which are not insignificant sums. The UK faces a staggering 1,000 cyber-attacks every hour, at an estimated annual cost of £27 billion.
In cyberspace, power can be exerted by states, non-state organisations or individuals, or by proxy. The boundaries are blurred between the military and the civilian, and between the physical and the virtual. The threats to security and information in the cyber-domain include state-sponsored attacks, ideological and political extremism, serious organised crime, low-level individual crime, cyber-protests, espionage and cyber-terrorism.
Some of the most sophisticated threats to the UK in cyberspace come from other states that seek to conduct espionage, and some states regard cyberspace as a way to commit hostile acts “deniably”. That is why, alongside our existing defence and security capabilities, the UK must be capable of protecting our national interests in cyberspace.
“Advanced persistent threat” is the term used most often to describe threats that are unlikely to be deterred by simple cyber-hygiene measures. Acts of aggression or malice in cyberspace differ from those in other domains. Cyberspace is regarded as an asymmetric domain, which means that even adversaries of limited means can pose a significant threat to military capabilities. We will all agree that cyberspace is a complex and rapidly changing environment.
The British Security Service estimates that at least 20 foreign intelligence services are operating to some degree against UK interests in cyberspace, and their targets are in the Government as well as in industry. The Government have pledged £650 million for cyber-security over four years—0.6% of the cost of attacks. It is therefore essential that the MOD works alongside other Departments and the Security Service to ensure that there is no duplication or inefficiency, given budget constraints. We believe that the Government must ensure that every company working with the MOD, regardless of its size or the scale of its work, signs up to a cyber-security charter. That will ensure that hackers cannot use small suppliers to get into the systems of major defence companies.
With the armed forces now so dependent on information and communications technology, should such systems suffer sustained cyber-attack, their ability to operate could be fatally compromised. Because events in cyberspace happen at great speed, there will not be time in the midst of a major international incident to develop doctrine, rules of engagement, or internationally accepted norms of behaviour. That is why the Defence Committee recommended that the MOD make the development of rules of engagement for cyber-operations an urgent priority, and ensure that the necessary intelligence, planning and co-ordination functions are properly resourced.
The rapidly changing nature of the cyber-threat demands that a premium be placed on research and development to enable the MOD to keep pace with, understand, and anticipate that threat. The Government should make it a priority to develop robust protocols for sharing information with industry to allow expertise to be pooled. A cyber-threat has the capacity to evolve with almost unimaginable speed, with serious consequences for the nation’s security.
In conclusion, I repeat our call for the Government to ensure that every company working with the Ministry of Defence, regardless of its size or the scale of its work, sign up to a cyber-security charter.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I should declare an obvious interest as the MP for Cheltenham, since GCHQ is based in my constituency. This is also a topical day to debate cyber-security, because this morning the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech in which he talked about the balance that needed to be struck between digital freedom and national security. He praised GCHQ for its continued expertise and its role in defending us all against cyber-attack.
Although there is currently no cold war in the old sense—I hope that is not the wrong thing to say; perhaps events in Ukraine are making us worry a little about that, but there is no active cold war in the way there used to be in the 1960s and 1970s—we are in effect at war in cyberspace. Ongoing attacks are taking place against this country and its institutions and businesses, and it is right that in 2010 the national security strategy identified cyber as a tier 1 threat alongside international terrorism, military crises and major accidents or natural hazards. Although the £650 million committed to the national cyber-security programme in 2011 sounded like a great deal of money, considering it against the billions being committed to Trident, for instance, which does not address any of those tier 1 threats, should give us some pause.
Trident addresses a theoretical and perhaps quite real future risk, and there are different views on that, but the cyber-security programme is defending us against current ongoing attacks. As hon. Members have pointed out, they are taking place at the rate of thousands an hour. It is almost like attacking an onion—Russian dolls would be the topical way of describing it. The core is the Government, the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces. We know that malicious e-mails are being blocked at the rate of 33,000 a month at the gateway to the Government secure internet. The next layer is defence contractors and the supply chain which, as other hon. Members have rightly pointed out, are just as critical to the successful operation of the armed forces and our defences as the Government core.
Critical infrastructure is the next layer. Hon. Members have rightly referred to banks and food supplies as part of that wider layer. The next layer is the wider economy and society. The threat to business is a threat to our national security; 93% of large businesses and 87% of small businesses have reported cyber-attacks in the past year, potentially costing thousands, as the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) mentioned.
The Defence Committee rang the alarm bell in 2013. It said that the risk of military operations being fatally compromised continued despite all the effort, and that we perhaps needed more resource and focus on cyber-security. It is right that we commit spending, and look at structures and process, but spreading the culture and practice of cyber-security matters at all levels, and across Government, business and society.
We have talked about the various units. I am pleased to say that GCHQ is in the lead, but the Global Operations Security Control Centre plays a vital role, as do the cyber-security information sharing partnership and various cyber-units in various places across Government. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) offered criticism of that proliferation of different units, but I believe the network approach is the right one. We need attention and focus in different places across Government. The last thing we want is for cyber-security to be silo-ed. We need the culture and practice of cyber-security to spread across Government.
That was brought home to me recently when I visited Bletchley Park, and the brilliant National Museum of Computing, which was celebrating 70 years since the Colossus machine, arguably the world’s first programmable computer, started breaking the Geheimschreiber codes at Bletchley Park. A lot was said about the technical expertise of the Government code and cipher school, which became GCHQ, and the genius of Alan Turing and Tommy Flowers, the great engineer who led the Colossus team—I am proud to say that my father was one of his Post Office engineers. However, it was emphasised that human error allowed many of those codes to be broken. It was not just human error in the sense of mistakes that gave away code keys, but the fatal underestimation of Bletchley Park’s capabilities on the part of Hitler and the German high command. Right up until D-day, Hitler held back Panzer divisions in the Pas de Calais because he simply did not believe that the Normandy landings were the real deal—he believed the misinformation and the false intelligence that was being fed to him. It never occurred to him that the Geheimschreiber codes were being broken and that our side had that capability.
I am pleased that GCHQ is in the lead on cyber-security and that it provides that technical expertise, but we need to spread the culture and understanding. By way of justifying the supplementary defence estimates to support that and other defence work, having that expertise has benefits for the UK economy. GCHQ has enormous links to academia, business and other parts of Government, but it supports cyber-skills at all levels, including encouraging maths, science and engineering in schools. I saw that at the Cheltenham science festival, although it encourages those subjects in many other ways. It also recognises academic departments that specialise in cyber-security. As has been said, they are now present in a large number of universities. That focus on high-tech skills, and research and development, could, and should already, make the UK a centre of global importance in cyber-security skills. In turn, that builds resilience, not just in Government but in businesses, making Britain a safer place to do business in cyberspace. All those things have economic benefits and more than justify the spending we are considering.
There is a slight sting in the tail. GCHQ and its expertise are widely recognised now, which may be one of the benefits that it has inadvertently gained as a result of Mr Snowden’s recent activities. Business recognises that expertise and skill, and is able to poach very expert people from GCHQ and, perhaps, from the Global Operations Security Control Centre as well. The Government need to value the people in GCHQ and GOSCC, and others across Government, who have those extraordinary skills, and—sometimes, I am afraid, in material terms—try to ensure that we hold on to the best people, and the real skills and expertise. We need to value those skills in all sorts of different ways, but I hope that Ministers will not take it wrongly if I say, on behalf of my constituents, that that way would also be appreciated.
We are facing a global threat. The United Kingdom is under current attack, and, while I think that the Government have got the strategy broadly right, I also think that they should not let up in defending us against this new and very 21st-century threat.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Our society relies more and more on cyberspace in activities ranging from internet shopping to internet banking. More and more of our lives, and consequently our details, are online, and our constituents are affected by that every day. It is only right that the Ministry of Defence has a cyber-system that provides security, can be updated, and can be foolproof.
The national cyber-security programme puts in place £650 million over four years to transform the United Kingdom’s cyber-security capability, of which the MOD’s defence cyber-security programme is part. The cyber-threat has a capacity for almost unimaginable speed, which could have serious consequences for the nation’s security. The nation therefore needs to do what it has not yet fully done, and provide the mechanisms, people, education, skills, thinking and policies that will make it possible to take into account both the opportunities and the vulnerabilities that cyber presents. If a reason for action were ever needed, that would be a very clear reason.
All of us, both inside and outside the House, will have watched films on television in which Governments are brought down by computer networks. I remember thinking that that was science fiction and that it could never actually happen, but all of a sudden, in our own lives as elected representatives dealing with constituents, we have found ourselves relating to some of the issues with which they have had to deal in connection with, for instance, banks. There is a real, definite possibility, for which we must be prepared.
We have heard more and more about hacking skills. Businesses and livelihoods now depend on cyber-security for protection, and we have a duty to protect ourselves, to protect Government Departments, and to protect our constituents. Currently, 91% of UK businesses and 73% of UK households have internet access, and £47.2 billion was spent online in the UK alone in 2009. The Minister has said that exact figures are hard to pin down, but a recent study by the Cabinet Office suggests that cybercrime now costs the UK £27 billion a year, with a cost of £2.2 billion to the Government, £3.1 billion to individuals in the form of fraud and identity theft, and by far the largest proportion—£21 billion—to industry.
Cyberspace is a continually evolving environment, and if we are to defend ourselves from the threats that emanate from it, we must keep pace with that change. However quickly a threat is identified, 10 more will have been dreamt up by those who have the capability to do so. We must ensure that our constituents are protected, and, if necessary and if possible, educated as well. One cyber-security chief has pointed out in one of the national papers that even a simple password is better than no password at all, and that many people are frightened of terminology.
I was pleased to learn that the new cyber-security programme essentially seeks to build on the centralised approach established by the last Government, and to tackle some of the emerging gaps. It seeks to establish new cyber-security institutions and education and skills initiatives, with the aim of locating and addressing the weaknesses in existing cyber-measures, anticipating future threats, and building good working relationships across UK sectors, both public and private, as well as within nations. That certainly requires, and is worthy of, the funding support proposed in the motion. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some indication of how, while the investment is taking place, all the regions of the United Kingdom—including Northern Ireland—can benefit from it. I am keen to understand how we in Northern Ireland can gain some direct advantage.
I understand that protection and security are essential for individuals and also for the Government and the Ministry of Defence, and the money must be used to maximise protection and education. The information provided by the Commons briefing stated the following, which determined my support for what has been proposed here today, because these facts and figures are horrendous. Some Members have mentioned them already. The director of GCHQ has described how cyberspace is contested around the clock. In the United Kingdom there are over 20,000 malicious e-mails on Government networks each month, 1,000 of which deliberately target that very department. The Security Service estimates that at least 20 foreign intelligence services are operating to some degree against UK interests in cyberspace. Again, that illustrates the scale of the problem.
The US estimates that the Pentagon’s computer systems are probed 250,000 times an hour, with more than 140 foreign spy organisations trying to infiltrate US networks. During the 2008 Olympic games, Beijing alone experienced 12 million cyber-attacks per day. That underlines the magnitude of this problem and the importance of our being prepared and ready to combat it. I again ask the Minister to comment on the collaboration aspect of that. The report mentions our collaboration with the United States, as other Members have. Can the Minister explain exactly what that entails, and can he assure us that we will not be exploited by the United States of America and its Government?
On the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, will Parliament be fully apprised of any decisions regarding participation in that and other international co-operative arrangements? It is important that everyone understands exactly what is proposed and what will happen.
These attacks are happening around the world and in the UK and we must protect ourselves. I am therefore very happy to support the proposals, and I ask the House to support them too, while also ensuring that every pound is spent effectively and enhances the skills of those in Government dealing with these threats. Other Members have stressed the importance of having skills in the MOD at corporal, sergeant and private level, so we can address the many pitfalls that may arise.
While cyber-terrorism may not be physical terrorism of the sort that some of us in this Chamber have faced personally, and whose effects can be seen in blood and tears, the effects of cyber-terrorism can bring a nation to its knees and we must ensure we are not the ones who are brought to our knees, but are instead able to withstand any such attack.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The greatest threat of electronic attack continues to be posed by state actors. Russia and China are suspected of carrying out the majority of assaults, but other countries—North Korea, Iran and even Syria—run very effective attacks too. The targets are in Government as well as in industry.
Let me give an example of a cyber-attack. On 23 April 2013 the American stock market dropped 1%; it lost $136.5 billion in a matter of seconds because of a false tweet posted on the Associated Press Twitter account. That tweet apparently came from Syria.
Let me give another example of a possible danger to this country, and here I will use information from a paper written for the Defence Committee by the distinguished academic Chris Donnelly. Huawei, a Chinese company strongly suspected of having close links to the Chinese Communist party and Government, is now providing crucial equipment for our national telecommunications system. The company has been debarred from doing that in the United States because it could not prove that it did not have strong links to the Chinese leadership.
Chris Donnelly’s paper highlighted three areas where Huawei could present a security risk. First, the company could insert undetected malware into its equipment, either to disable the system at will or at least to monitor it. Secondly, there is a possible security risk from the Chinese managers and technicians who man the system. Thirdly, allowing Huawei to dominate the field takes away our sovereign ability to deal with matters ourselves. Recently, there has been growing concern that our national cyber-security systems might not be able to detect whether malware has been inserted into the system.
Mr Gray
My hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the possibility that companies of all sorts might act against the interests of this country, but it is also right to record that Huawei is a major employer in the United Kingdom and is a multi-billion-pound multinational company. The suggestion that it is, in some way or another, an agent or a foreign force in the way he describes may of course be true, but it is worth saying that there is no evidence that that is the case.
Bob Stewart
I thank my hon. Friend for that, but I am not sure that he is right. Huawei has been involved in setting up our cyber-security evaluation centre. It offered its services at knock-down prices—no western firm could match them, and our economy was and is in a poor position to resist the temptation of accepting what looked like a very good deal. So we could be setting a thief to catch that same thief. Of course the suspicions I voice may be erroneous and our cyber-security services could be totally on top of this one, but without access to classified information I have no way of checking. Members may recall that Huawei offered to provide a mobile phone system for the London underground during the 2012 Olympics—was it not free or close to being free? If I recall it correctly, that offer was turned down on security grounds.
As Chris Donnelly highlighted, state security requirements and gaining commercial advantage are two sides of the same coin in China. We should be under no illusion about the Chinese’s willingness to put huge efforts into understanding and, if necessary, harnessing all sorts of systems in the UK to advance the Chinese national interest. Already there is a mass English learning programme in existence, which Chris Donnelly suggests involves 300 million people in China, and a similar mass programme to teach computing. In 2012, China conducted what it called its first “digital technology exercise” in Inner Mongolia, when an entire division of hackers in the uniform of the Chinese liberation army was deployed. These cyber warriors went to war across the whole spectrum of western activity, not just against western military communications. We are wasting our time calling on China to stop hacking into our systems. Of course the Chinese will deny they are doing it until they are blue in the face—
Bob Stewart
Forgive me, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He always stands up for the infantry, so he would use the word red, and I accept it; red is the colour of the infantry.
We had better wake up to the fact that systematic and state organised hacking is a massive Chinese industry. I am pretty sure that our security services are well aware of the threat, but the public must also be made aware of it. We need the funding to do what we can to counter the threat.
Let me be clear: hacking can be more deadly than a gun. Cyber-warfare, taken to its logical conclusion, could bring our society to its knees. Almost nothing works without electricity. I am talking about light, energy, traffic control—on the ground and in the air—hospitals, police and even sewerage. Undoubtedly, the national grid would be a No.1 priority target for someone wishing to reduce us to our knees. Von Clausewitz stated that war is an extension of politics by other means, but systematic hacking is also war, by new, subtle and probably very effective means.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
In a hands-free, wireless, bluetooth enabled world, how would any of us cope without access to our mobile phone or computer data for any duration of time? Our lives and livelihoods depend on those assets, and they would change fundamentally if they did not work. The recent flooding in Dorset affected electricity and caused some households to reach for the candles. What a new experience that was for a generation of people who perhaps take our world a little bit for granted. They believe that all these things that we enjoy are there and will not be challenged.
I welcome this debate, and I commend the Defence Committee and its Chair for their report. My concern is that we are debating something that is changing almost daily and yet the report was printed on 26 March 2012. In answer to my interventions at the start of the debate, the Minister made it clear that changes have been introduced, but even they will be out of date given the pace of change in this area.
As we move into an ever more digital and virtual world, we are increasingly exposed to attacks not just on personal data and intellectual property but on state operations, from air traffic control systems to electricity grids. Cyber-attacks are simpler and cheaper than a dirty bomb. We no longer see robbers running in to rob a bank; it is all done electronically. This is the world that we now need to recognise.
Two years ago, I attended a course at Harvard university on national and international security. A cyber-security expert borrowed a laptop. He then purchased and downloaded $16 of software, and managed to tap into Boston’s traffic light systems. Had he taken it one step further, he would have been traced and got into trouble. None the less, he showed how easy and quick it would have been, with just $16 of software, to cause huge disruption.
Let me place this issue in perspective. In the development of warfare, there are occasionally seismic leaps in capability as new systems are introduced, and they force all of us to adapt. Going back in history, the longbow changed the outcome of the battle of Agincourt. The introduction of the cannonball changed the way in which ships attacked one another, preventing the need to go on board. The introduction of the submarine, the tank, the plane and the aircraft carrier all changed the conduct of war. As has been said again and again in this Chamber, cyber-technology will provide a new dimension, which we all need to understand.
I am a little saddened that the Chamber is so empty. I hope that it is not because I am on my feet.
Mr Ellwood
Thank you! The fact is it is the usual suspects who are here today, by which I mean those who are interested in defence matters. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said, this issue does not affect just defence. It covers the business arena, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, yet we are not familiarising ourselves with the structures and processes so that we are at the front end of this capability. The speed of attack, if it happens, will be phenomenal. We have not yet seen anything on a scale that would fundamentally affect our lives, but there will be no build-up to such an attack. There will be no arms, tanks or ships mustering on the border; our lives will suddenly change when our computer systems no longer work.
The UK’s military equipment is increasingly vulnerable because of the complexity of its IT. What would happen if we lost the global positioning system? How would anything operate and could we cope? When I was at Sandhurst, we were taught how to use a compass. I am not sure whether that happens any more, but if the systems go down, that is what will be required.
Today’s statement on Ukraine reminds us of our involvement in the Crimean war and the charge of the Light Brigade. That infamous event took place because of a breakdown in communications, as by the time the orders reached Lord Cardigan, he had the wrong idea of what his mission was. Goodness knows what would happen today if we had insufficient resilience to communicate using our usual systems.
Knowing a little about Joint Forces Command, I understand the logic of placing cyber-security in that domain—it is wise that it is fed into the command—but cyber-security should have its own distinct command with its own expertise, as is advocated by some in the United States. Additionally, the relationship between the Global Operations Security Control Centre and the defence cyber operations group needs to be clarified for those of us who were unable to participate in the Committee’s inquiry. Will the Minister update us on bringing together disparate groupings and organisations within various Ministries through the GOSCC?
I support the call for the use of reservists. Banks and other financial services businesses are at the high end of ensuring that they protect their capabilities, so we need to determine how we attract people with the skill sets to do that job to work in the Ministry of Defence as well. Will the Minister tell us what is being done to encourage our NATO allies to improve joint capabilities? That subject might be suitable for discussion at the 2014 NATO summit, which will take place in this country. Given the damage and disruption that a cyber-attack might inflict, would a full-scale attack on another country be subject to article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty? Have rules of engagement been determined for offensive and defence cyber-operations?
I welcome this debate and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) that we should have defence debates more regularly. The House needs to understand this emerging threat that faces us all, as it is only a matter of time before a major strike takes place. I welcome the huge progress that the Government are making, but there is clearly much more to do.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Labour Members welcome the increased focus that cyber-defence is receiving. The report by the Defence Committee is evidence of that focus, so I congratulate its members on their excellent work. Cyber-attacks are at last properly acknowledged as a serious threat to our national security and are rightly prioritised as a tier 1 risk in the Government’s 2010 national security document. As the Committee’s report says, the threat is liable to grow and evolve at “almost unimaginable speed”. Indeed, the pace of technological change is faster than traditional Government structures and time lines can cope with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said, five years is a long time in the cyber-world and the threat from cyber-attack is rising exponentially. The number of global web users in 1995 was 16 million; it is estimated that by 2015, there will be more interconnected devices on the planet than there are human beings.
As communications technologies spread and as the UK critical infrastructure networks become even more heavily based on IT networks, cyber-defence becomes an increasingly pressing security concern. There will be even more attacks. According to the Government’s own national security strategy document, the UK faces up to 1,000 cyber-attacks every hour, which is estimated to cost the UK £27 billion a year. Cyber-attacks are now a constant reality, with the Government, the private sector and private citizens all under sustained cyber-attack from both hostile states and criminals, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) articulated so well.
I have no doubt that the Government take the threat of cyber-attack seriously, although perhaps not seriously enough. The report makes it clear that Ministers have not yet put in place the infrastructure to deal with that real threat properly, or approached the problem with vigour or sufficient robustness. As the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) said, the problem is agile and many-layered—I think it has been likened to an onion, and the Opposition would agree with that.
Bob Stewart
It is not an onion, because that implies that one peels away a layer to get at it; actually, it is an attack on all institutions—every single part of our society—simultaneously. I therefore disagree with the onion analogy.
Yvonne Fovargue
I will not be tempted to go further into vegetable analogies. I think the multi-layered approach is the one we are dealing with here.
The Government have committed £650 million over four years to the cyber-security programme, which seems like a significant sum, but only 14% of that was allocated to the Ministry of Defence, while the total investment equates to only 0.6% of the £27 billion that the UK loses through cybercrime every year. In its report, the Defence Committee questioned whether enough was being done to secure the supply chain and the industrial base. We know that supplies of armed forces’ equipment are increasingly being targeted, and are especially vulnerable to cyber-attack. In their response, the Government say they are working closely with industry on matters such as information sharing and incident reporting, but give precious little detail. The Government need to go further, and Labour is calling on them to ensure that every company working with the Ministry of Defence, regardless of its size or the scale of its work, signs up to a cyber-security charter. That will ensure that hackers cannot use the small suppliers to get into the systems of the major defence companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, the risks from cyber-attacks are huge and growing; we need to do everything we can to protect against them, and the MOD and its contractors should lead by example.
The Government also refer to progress on the joint cyber reserve—an initiative to involve reservists in the delivery of cyber-security—but give little detail. Will the Minister say what progress has been made in that important matter? I would particularly like to hear his thoughts on recruitment. The cyber reserves are not likely to be a traditional military outfit: the skills are entirely different. Is it essential that those reservists meet the usual fitness standards of the armed forces? A senior US officer said it was not essential that they were able to march 3 miles with a pack on their back, and I think most people would agree. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the requirements for the new force and how its personnel will fit into the military model.
What is the Minister doing to attract recruits? We have heard that a lot of the top universities are running cyber programmes with top computing graduates. Is the Minister attending those events or approaching careers fairs? Is there a career path that will be attractive to young graduates—we need not only to recruit but to retain those graduates. A recent study by the Army Families Federation shows that large numbers of married Army personnel want to leave the service. That will be all the more problematic with cyber personnel, as there are many lucrative private sector jobs tempting them away. But of course many of the skills and experiences required for this are prevalent in the defence industry. What steps is the Minister taking to encourage firms involved in Government contract work—not just in the defence but throughout Government—to encourage their staff to become reservists? What responses are there from such firms?
The new joint cyber-force is described by the Secretary of State in terms of its offensive rather than defensive capabilities, enhancing our ability to strike back in cyberspace against enemies who attack us. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) said, what are the rules of engagement? Land, sea and air have been the traditional theatres of war. Cyberspace is new and untested. What constitutes a cyber act of war and, equally important, what would be a proportionate response to an act of aggression? For example, if all London’s systems were knocked out by an electromagnetic pulse device, would that be an act of war? What would we do about it? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend said, how would we know who did it? In short, what are the rules of engagement?
It would also be interesting to hear whether the Minister believes that the concept of deterrence applies to cyber-defence as it does to conventional defence as perhaps those with the most ability to attack our cyber-capabilities have the least reliance on their own cyber-capabilities. What role does he envisage offensive cyber-capabilities playing in this? Do we work alone or in concert with others? The Secretary of State has made much of cyber-security being a sovereign capability but we have been working with other nations in supranational bodies for some time; for example we are a member of the “Five Eyes” group, which includes the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and we have also been working with NATO. The report cites the important work of the NATO cyber-defence centre of excellence. Of course this is based in Estonia and was created as a direct consequence of the cyber-attacks on that country in 2007. There is excellent work undertaken there and I am glad that the Government are committed to participation in the centre, although some may doubt whether the contribution of £20,000 per annum will have much impact. But the lesson to be learned here is that we cannot afford to wait until an attack happens before we act. We have to be proactive.
Since the publication of the report, we have seen developments within the EU’s common security and defence policy. The European Council meeting on 19 and 20 December last year led to a call for the development of an EU cyber-defence policy framework in 2014. I would be interested to hear what talks have been taking place about this. Working with, and within, bodies such as the “Five Eyes”, NATO and the EU is vital, not only for intelligence sharing but for developing common rules of engagement. We must be aware of the threat and how best to counter it. That is why we need all the organisations to work together.
A further point is public trust. The public have to have trust in what we are doing to protect them and that is why accountability is so important. The USA has FISMA, the Federal Information Security Management Act, of course. What research has been done into how this might translate into our own system? We must also ask what role Parliament and the Intelligence and Security Oversight Committee should have in this new era of cyber-defence.
Currently we are accustomed to thinking of security in terms of three forces; army, navy and air force. But in many ways cyber does add a fourth strand. Just as the creation of the RAF in 1918 demanded a whole new way of thinking about defence and war, the increasing cyber threat means that we need to do some fresh thinking now. We have to think seriously about how we can combat this new threat because one thing is certain; it can only grow. Conventional borders will have less and less impact but the impact on civilians and the military will be greater and greater.
When the internet and electronic communications were first devised it was thought that they would impact only on academics in ivory towers. They have developed in ways that were never imagined then and have become an everyday part of our lives. Imagine a world without banking, power, communications systems, computers, control of our weapons. It absolutely does not bear thinking about, which is why we have to think about it and ensure that the MOD and the military are ready to take on this threat, and that they know their part, and play their part, in protecting our country and its citizens from this new and fast-evolving threat.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in recognising and thanking those members of the armed forces, both regular and reserve, who have been engaged in preserving lives and protecting property in those communities across the United Kingdom that have been struck by the recent storms and floods. They have provided very good service and we are immensely proud of them.
May I also welcome the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) to the Dispatch Box? Although she has been on the Opposition’s defence team for a while, this is the first time we have debated together directly, so I would like to welcome her to her post formally. I will do my best to answer at least some of the questions she asked in her speech.
I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), the Chair of the Defence Committee, for introducing the debate so ably and the 11 right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part so constructively. I have read the Committee’s report, which was published early last year, and the Government’s response. I will seek to address some of the Committee’s concerns and report to the House on our recent progress in this important field.
It might interest Members to know that the term “cyberspace” is usually credited to the 1980’s science fiction writings of William Gibson. He used it as a buzzword to describe an all-pervasive virtual realm. Although there are many interpretations, we generally use the term to mean the interdependent network of IT infrastructures and the data that move therein. Cyberspace has become an essential part of most of our lives, from communications to shopping, and from life saving to war fighting. In 2013 some 21 million households in Great Britain had an internet connection. That degree of connectivity clearly has security implications that we cannot ignore.
Although the MOD runs its own cyber-defence programme—I will say more about that later—the defence of our national cyber infrastructure begins within central Government, with the Cabinet Office playing a key role, as it does with all potential crisis management situations. All public and private sector organisations have a stake in addressing the threat, across international and domestic boundaries. To co-ordinate that effort, the Government created the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance within the Cabinet Office, which runs our national cyber-security programme. Alongside the Cyber Security Operations Centre, OCSIA works with other lead Government Departments and agencies, such as the MOD, the Home Office and GCHQ—the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly paid tribute to his constituents there and the skills they have.
The national cyber-security programme is backed up by £860 million of Government investment from 2011 to 2016. That comprises an initial £650 million allocated across Government at the time of the strategic defence and security review and an additional £210 million investment announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer following the 2013 spending review. Moreover, given the seriousness with which we treat the cyber threat, since the Committee’s report the Minister for defence equipment, support and technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), announced in July 2013 that, on top of the money allocated to the MOD from the national cyber-security programme, the MOD has allocated a further £70 million over the next four years from within our own budget for improving our cyber-defence capabilities.
The MOD’s key priority is to keep our own networks and systems defended and operational, so that if a crisis occurs we can continue to operate with the same efficiency and professionalism required on the battlefield. That does not mean that we cannot help in other ways, but the situation prevailing at the time will dictate how, when and if military assistance would be called upon.
A number of hon. Members asked about MOD structures, as indeed did the Committee’s report, so perhaps I can provide some clarification. Since the Committee’s report was published, the Chief of the Defence Staff has issued direction to the four-star commander of Joint Forces Command to empower him as the defence authority for cyber. On a day-to-day basis, that responsibility is delegated to the three-star Chief of Defence Intelligence in his unifying role to plan and develop cyber capability. Under CDI sits the joint forces cyber group, stood up formally in May 2013 to deliver that capability. The joint forces cyber group plans and directs the activity of the joint cyber units at Cheltenham and Corsham, including the reserves.
The senior responsible owner for the defence cyber programme is the two-star director for cyber, intelligence and information integration, currently Air Vice-Marshal Jonathan Rigby, who gave evidence to the Committee’s inquiry in 2012, and remains accountable to the Chief of Defence Intelligence for those responsibilities. I hope that that helps provide absolute clarity about the chain of command.
Our armed forces use some of the most sophisticated equipment in the world. The downside of the capability we possess is the potential exposure to emerging threats from our adversaries. We have to see those as an intrinsic part of modern military operations and put measures in place to mitigate or deal with them. The Global Operations and Security Control Centre, or GOSCC, is a key part of that protection, with its mission to ensure that we can operate and defend our networks.
I was pleased to read in the report that the GOSCC’s performance impressed the Defence Committee, which said that it should be held up as “a centre of excellence.” I agree. I visited the centre recently and was struck both by the ability of the personnel and the interplay with the embedded industry professionals whom they work alongside.
The Committee also rightly identified the importance of promoting good cyber-security practice. I fully accept that technology is only one part of the equation; we need the right people to do the right things. As cyber professionals often say, the majority of the threat that we face could be overcome by good practice on the part of our people. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti); we Front Benchers are also pleased to see him back here on good form.
At the time of the Government response to the Committee’s report, we had already recognised the need for good practice and had included a specific cyber module in our mandatory training for defence personnel. Since then, we have gone further and developed a cyber primer—an easy-to-read, unclassified book that introduces personnel to the subject of cyber, particularly in a defence context, and is provided for all defence personnel to use.
In its report, the Committee noted the importance of exploring options to develop military capabilities. Since then, the Secretary of State for Defence has announced, on 29 September 2013, that Britain will build a dedicated capability to counter-attack in cyberspace as part of our full-spectrum military capability. As we set out in the strategic defence and security review, the UK views cyberspace as a domain in which we can carry out military operations to support national objectives, as we would on land, at sea or in the air. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) asked questions about the legality of that. I reassure him and the House that we are looking to develop a range of cyber capabilities that would be used in accordance with the well-understood laws of armed conflict and, more generally, would comply with domestic and international law. Any capability that we develop must be used legally. We are mindful of that.
Mr Gray
The Minister is making an extremely interesting and useful speech. In the context of the offensive use of cyber, does he believe that there can be such a thing as deterrence in the cyber world? Is there a way of finding out who the enemy is and deterring them by threatening the use of cyber-warfare ourselves?
Mr Francois
A complicating factor is that it is not always immediately apparent where an attack may have come from. Sometimes it is possible to establish that a little later, but it cannot always be done instantly. That needs to be taken into account. However, I believe that the possession of a cyber capability that allows us to strike back could act as a deterrent to potential adversaries—not only in cyberspace but potentially against more traditional threats.
A number of Members have asked about how industry fits in, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie). Private industry is and will remain a key partner in cyber-security. A secure supply chain is vital for the business of all public sector delivery, and that is no less the case in defence. Our armed forces depend on a wide range of equipment and services provided by industry. As part of the NCSP, the Government are working closely with industry to ensure that it is aware of the changing nature of the threat and has effective counters in place.
The hon. Member for Makerfield asked for something specific to the Ministry of Defence. I am pleased to say that in addition, in July 2013, the MOD launched the defence cyber-protection partnership. That bespoke initiative aims to meet the emerging threat to the UK defence supply chain by increasing awareness of cyber-risks among our contractors and suppliers, sharing threat intelligence, and defining risk-driven approaches to applying cyber-security standards. In short, we already have something that is designed specifically for military and defence contractors and they are entering that programme.
Technology is only one part of the equation. People are essential. We know that the number of deep specialists and experts in this field is limited, and that all organisations, both public and private, are looking to recruit from that supply. However, defence can offer an exciting opportunity for experts to put their skills to use for the nation through the formation of the joint cyber reserve. Some hon. Members asked about that, and I will provide an update.
Recruitment to the joint cyber reserve commenced in October 2013, and there has been healthy interest. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) how many of the applicants come from the Department for Work and Pensions, but I respect her assiduous work, as ever, in collecting statistics, and I have often been on the receiving end. I assure her and the House that we have recruited the first cohort of cyber reservists, and their training will commence in the spring.
On the basis of the healthy interest so far, we believe that within the next two years the cyber reserve will be fully operational with reserve personnel recruited, trained and operating alongside their regular military and civilian colleagues in the joint cyber-units at Corsham and Cheltenham, and in the information assurance units.
Mr Brazier
I am sorry that I have had to be out of the Chamber for a long-standing engagement. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the cyber reserve includes two long-standing squadrons that have been around for six or seven years and were part of the specialist group, the Royal Signals, and that those squadrons will go intact into the new set-up?
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before. He asks a specific question about two specific squadrons. I believe that what he asks is the case, but I will write to him to confirm it. The House knows that he is the world’s greatest living expert on this matter, and I do not want to be the man to give him a wrong steer.
The cyber reserve offers individuals the opportunity to be part of the proud history and ethos of our reserves while working in a cutting-edge, technological field. The hon. Member for Bridgend asked about the effect on reservists if they travel to other countries. I will look into the good point she raised, and will return to her on that.
Cyber crosses national boundaries, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made clearly, and so too must our view of this new domain. It is, therefore, essential that we work with our allies to ensure that we are not only able to operate with one another, but are aware of common threats. We are already working closely on cyber with our long-standing international partners, particularly through a defence cyber-contact group that includes the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and ourselves—the traditional “Five Eyes” partners.
Thomas Docherty
Before the Minister moves away from personnel, what lessons are being learned about recruiting regulars and reservists from the IT world? He seemed to skip over that.
Mr Francois
This is a wonderful opportunity to recruit IT specialists from the civilian world to the reserves, but we have learned that this is a specialised area of work and we are looking at ways of extending the careers of people who work in cyber. For example, in the military, people might normally do a tour of two or three years and then move to a different position. We are looking at options for allowing people who work in this field to do longer tours of duty so that we can fully exploit the detailed expertise that they develop. We are looking at the matter carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) asked about NATO co-operation. The UK is proud to be part of the NATO co-operative cyber defence centre of excellence in Tallinn, and the MOD has already seconded a member of our cyber team to work there. I should tell the Chairman of the Select Committee that the Committee cannot take all the credit for that, but it can certainly take part of it. Furthermore, we have increased our co-operation with the NATO computer incident response capability based in Brussels by joining the malware information-sharing platform and the multinational cyber-defence education and training project.
I assure the House that we are taking cyber very seriously in our defence planning. We are integrating cyber scenarios into our cross-defence exercise programme and combining it with the other domains of operations as part of full-spectrum planning, alongside land, air and sea. The cyber piece is becoming integral across the spectrum of military activity.
Mr Francois
I think I should conclude because we have another debate to come.
Cyber remains a relatively young domain. Many advances will continue to come online and change the way we live our lives. While this brings new opportunities for better understanding, collaboration and innovation, we must be alert to the risks and threats as they emerge. We are striving to do both within the Ministry of Defence. It is not a task for the fainthearted, but one we must undertake none the less. The Select Committee urged us to take these threats seriously. I hope I have been able to demonstrate to the House that we do take them very seriously, in defence of the realm.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Department for Communities and Local Government
Private Rented Sector
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak about the report on the private rented sector by the Communities and Local Government Committee—its first report of the 2013-14 Session. The report was produced through the Committee taking formal evidence in a number of sittings. Some of those featured more informal discussions and some involved landlords and tenants together, which was interesting. There was a visit to Leeds to look at how the council was operating with regard to the private rented sector, and a visit to Germany to look at the sector in a very different sphere of housing circumstances. On behalf of the Committee, I particularly thank Christine Whitehead, who was the Committee’s special adviser for the inquiry, and Kevin Maddison, the lead specialist from the Committee staff working on the inquiry.
We chose the subject of the private rented sector not because of any particular initiative that the Government were proposing at the time but because of the sector’s increasing importance to our constituents. According to the latest figures for 2012-13, 18% of households now live in the private rented sector. That growth did not suddenly happen following the banking crisis of 2008; it had been taking place before that over a period of time. Indeed, it has been the only growing housing sector since 2002, when owner-occupation started to fall as a percentage of households. That is an interesting fact.
The Committee saw the growth of the private rented sector not as a short-term issue but as something that is likely to continue in the longer term. We also observed that it is changing in that it is home to a wider range of households, particularly families with children who might, in other times, have chosen to be in a different sector but are now looking for a different housing experience, and particularly for more security. When people with children change their home, that often means changing schools, and that creates substantial disruption to family life.
When we went to Germany, we saw a very different situation that we are probably not likely to get to any time soon. People literally have tenancies for life; many of us could not quite get our heads around that. Someone with a tenancy in Germany has it for life and can pass it on so that their family members can succeed to it. We learned that there were good standards in the private rented sector that we ought to seek to emulate in this country. Tenants and landlords had an awareness and understanding of rights and responsibilities that is perhaps not always shared in this country. There was an equilibrium between demand and supply to which we aspire but recognise realistically that it will take some to achieve. Those factors create a very different market indeed.
We identified five main areas to concentrate on in our report: awareness of rights and responsibilities; the standards of properties and of how they are managed; effective regulation of letting agents, which we received an awful lot of evidence about; new tenancy models looking for longer-term agreements and greater security; and, in passing—because we had already done a report on this the previous year—increasing the housing supply.
When it came to taking evidence, the then housing Minister—the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is in his place—was, as usual, very open to ideas and he welcomed, both in his initial statement in the House and in the Government’s response, many of our recommendations, as indeed did the then shadow housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). May I place on record the Committee’s thanks to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford for the courteous, assiduous and highly knowledgeable way in which he always approached us and our deliberations?
There was a great deal of consensus right from the beginning. The Government have subsequently produced their “Review of property conditions in the private rented sector”, which includes many of the Committee’s ideas. Indeed, having initially dismissed our recommendations for mandatory carbon monoxide and smoke alarms in private rented homes and for five-yearly checks of the electrical installations, the Government are now consulting on them. Of course, consulting does not necessarily mean agreeing, but at least it is a step in the right direction, which we should recognise and welcome.
There are two areas on which we have not reached agreement and to which we need to pay more attention. The first is the flexibility of local authority powers to raise standards and to deal with rogue landlords in particular—I will say more about that in due course—and the second is the regulation of letting agents, on which the Government have not gone as far as the Committee wanted them to. I will explore that as well.
On raising awareness, in Germany it struck me and, I think, other Committee members that tenants and landlords seemed to understand the rules and their responsibilities. That is not always the case in this country. Our report notes that there is a bewildering array of legislation and regulation relating to the private rented sector. Different Acts of Parliament are cross-referenced in new Acts and it is very difficult for any professional, let alone any lay person, to get their head around the situation. A professional landlord might understand some of it, but small landlords and tenants probably do not.
We therefore called for a review of the potential consolidation of legislation, but the Government rejected that, which is disappointing because I think it would have helped to simplify things. We were not asking for more regulation; we were asking for simpler regulation. There is a difference. The Government could have scrapped some regulations if they had gone about it in a different way and that may have earned some brownie points for Ministers past and present.
John Stevenson
The hon. Gentleman’s opening comments are very much in tune with the views of the Committee. Does he agree that we recognised that the rented market is a relatively immature market and that, while we encouraged positive changes, one of the reasons why we were a little cautious in our approach was that we also recognised that we had to allow the market to develop and mature in its own way?
Mr Betts
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and I thank him for putting that clearly on the record. That is exactly what the Committee agreed. Some of the changes will be incremental and there will be opportunities for either this or a future Government to come back and look at the totality of regulation and legislation, which I think would be helpful for everyone involved.
On raising awareness, the Government have accepted some of the recommendations. The Committee called for easy-to-read fact sheets and model tenancy agreements. The Government have already produced a draft tenants charter and we look forward to their model tenancy agreement. That is entirely in line with what the Committee recommended, which was to try to make things easier, particularly for people who do not easily understand legislation and regulations, and to have something that is easy to operate. We felt that that would really help not only tenants, but many landlords, particularly non-professional, occasional landlords who have a few properties and would welcome such an approach.
We asked for a review of the housing health and safety rating system. Again, it is valued by many professionals, but it is very difficult to understand for many landlords, let alone for tenants. I do not think that the Government are prepared to go so far as a wholesale review, but we note that they are now trying to produce guidance for tenants and to update the methodology. There are problems in relation to local authorities wanting to act against a property if the tenant is elderly, but not if they are young, and landlords can get confused about an authority requiring them to do work simply because they have changed tenants. It is certainly worth looking at that complication in the new guidance and new methodology.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Years ago, we had what was called a rents officer, which would surely be one of the better ways of enforcement whether in relation to private landlords or higher rents in general. Rents are now escalating because the supply of housing is very low. Did my hon. Friend and his Committee consider that?
Mr Betts
We did, but I will come on to rents later, if I may, because that is a separate issue. We did refer to that matter, but the main point of our report concentrated on standards, which is what I am trying to address now.
As we all know, the reality is that some of the worst standards in housing are in the private rented sector. That does not mean that every such property is bad and we should not give all private landlords a bad name, but as well as some of the worst properties, the sector has some of the most vulnerable occupiers, and that juxtaposition should really worry us. Some landlords simply want to sit and do nothing, while others blatantly break the law and think that they can get away with it, and we particularly want to bear down on them. There was general agreement about how to bear down on the really bad landlords without putting extra burdens on the good ones, and about how, at a time of financial constraint for local authorities, to enable them to take action against such private landlords and ensure that they can use their resources and recover their costs.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I would add long-distance landlords to the list of problem landlords. I had a letter from a lady in west Sussex complaining about the condition of properties and various other things in the area of Church in Accrington. Many landlords in that area do not live there and have never visited it, and their properties are not in a particularly good condition. That is not necessarily for nasty or unpleasant reasons, but because landlords generally live too far away, and because they are amateur about making such an investment, rather than professional in housing management. Will my hon. Friend add long-distance landlords to his list?
Mr Betts
I do not want to say that every landlord who lives at a distance is a bad one—that would be wrong—but living further away can clearly make it more difficult for tenants to contact landlords and get instant responses about problems, particularly if landlords do not use a reputable agent to help them manage the property on the spot. We will come on to agents a little later. The issue is about local authorities having the powers to act against not merely individual properties, but areas with collections of properties in poor condition, which is probably the sort of area to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his very generous remarks earlier. Houses in multiple occupation are a subset of the private rented sector on which there needs to be a real concentration. I certainly attempted to do that as a Minister, and I am sure that my successor is also seeking to do so. Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that we should often focus on HMOs in relation to the worst behaviour?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. The Committee was very supportive of the legislation on HMOs, particularly local authorities’ use of article 4 powers to try to restrict the growth in their numbers in areas where there were so many that they had begun to dominate, as well as of the Government’s position. There is cross-party consensus on that issue.
Mr Prisk
My experience as a Minister was that there was a lot of reluctance among local authorities to use article 4. I am not suggesting that I encouraged them to do so unreasonably, but a bit of elbow pushing was required to get them to do the job. I think that the Select Committee’s support will be very helpful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Betts
Yes, certainly. One of the messages right the way through the report is that there is good practice among local authorities. As with many things that we consider, it is a challenge to ensure that the good practice is spread to all authorities and that that knowledge is available. It should not be just the Select Committee, the Government and the Opposition telling councils what to do; they should be able to look at the good work that is being done by colleagues in other councils and replicate it.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On property conditions, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities have a statutory duty to deal with certain hazards in a property. Did the report look in any detail at expanding the number of hazards that are covered by that statutory duty? If so, does he have any thoughts about the cost implications for local authorities of doing so?
Mr Betts
No, we did not look at extending the properties that are covered by that responsibility of local authorities. We did look at the powers that are available to local authorities in respect of the approach to the licensing and registration of landlords in their area, and I will come on to discuss that.
Jake Berry
The licensing of landlords in areas of low demand is a separate issue. The powers that are available to local authorities in respect of houses that are not in a fit state of repair are already quite extensive. For example, they can put an order on a property that spans all residential use. That power is not widely used and I wonder whether the report says anything about why that is.
Graham Jones
I think that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), was referring to the housing health and safety rating system and its implementation by local authorities in respect of category 1 and category 2 hazards. Does my hon. Friend agree that if significant cuts are made to local government, it does not help environmental and housing enforcement teams in local authorities to enforce the housing standards, even if they have a statutory ability to do so?
Mr Betts
The Committee received evidence of concerns in some local authorities that the squeeze on their resources was affecting their abilities in respect of the private rented sector. We tried to look at how authorities could deal with the challenges that they face most effectively with the resources that they have. One thing that we looked at was licensing.
On balance, the Committee did not come down in favour of a national licensing scheme. That is essentially because, over a number of reports, we have tended to be localist and to believe that local authorities should be allowed to make such choices for themselves. We went to Leeds, which has a very good accreditation scheme, under which there is good training and advice for landlords, which the landlords really appreciate. However, we were told by landlords and tenants that the problem is that it is the good landlords that join such schemes. They said, “It’s those landlords down the road you want to get hold of and they’re not going to volunteer.”
The selective licensing approach tends to be cumbersome, time-consuming and bureaucratic, and the criteria are very restricted. The Committee therefore asked whether we could relax the criteria and make them more flexible so that local authorities could engage in selective licensing if they wanted to. We also asked whether, in a more general sense, a local authority could have an accreditation scheme that was mandatory, so that it would include all landlords, including those who do not want to join.
Unfortunately, on both issues, the Government’s response was not as helpful as we would have liked. They said no to mandatory accreditation schemes and no to a review of the flexibility of selective licensing. The Government’s recent consultation document does include changes to selective licensing, but they are talking about tightening the criteria, rather than making them more flexible. That seems to be a retrograde step. All our evidence suggested that that was too cumbersome and does not work, and authorities that want to make it work find it difficult to make it happen.
We are apparently consulting on a landlord-specific, rather than property-specific, licensing or accreditation scheme, which the consultation document refers to as a suggestion from the Communities and Local Government Committee, although it was not. It has clearly come from somewhere, however, and it may not be unwelcome if it gives local authorities another set of powers and another way to deal with rogue landlords who are causing problems. If those landlords who persistently cause problems with individual properties have to become part of a mandatory registration scheme, that could be perhaps not a complete response to the Committee’s request, but at least a helpful step in the right direction, as we suggested.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
All the evidence from London suggests that the problem is not low demand as the criteria state, but high demand. Surely all that evidence leads us to believe that we need greater flexibility in licensing, otherwise we will not get to the heart of the problem.
Mr Betts
Precisely, and the Committee’s view was very simple. These arrangements are—or at least should be—for local authorities to determine. Local authorities know their own areas and there is a big difference between one local authority and another. Even within London and within local authorities themselves there are big differences, so we hope the Government will recognise the value of giving a local authority a range of powers to tailor requirements to the needs of a particular area.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend must be aware that in areas of high housing demand such as London, the six-month shorthold tenancy means that any tenant who has the temerity to complain about conditions to the environmental health service, or anybody else, rapidly finds their tenancy terminated. They then become homeless or have to move some distance away. There must be proper protection for people who legitimately exercise their right to complain.
Mr Betts
Yes, and the Government are consulting on retaliatory evictions as part of their consultation document, which is to be welcomed. One other issue that the Committee report dealt with that we must consider is how to encourage longer term tenancies. Families in particular want greater security. They may not want to be in the private rented sector, but if they are there and have a property they like, they probably want to be there for five years rather than six months. Considering how we can change the culture—that is what it is, as much as anything else—to get landlords and tenants to understand that there are possibilities within the framework of the existing assured shorthold tenancy for a tenancy longer than six months or a year, is a step forward. We must also consider how to get letting agents to recognise that they should be advising on that—letting agents often have a vested interest in regular reviews of tenants and tenancies because they make a profit and receive a fee every time they do it.
We must also deal with the fact that many lenders prevent landlords from having a tenancy of more than a year. Nationwide is now, I think, prepared to accept a three-year tenancy, which is a good step forward, and the Government are trying to bring lenders together to try to make that change happen. I entirely accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North about retaliatory evictions when tenants complain. However, if landlords are to accept a tenancy period of three or even five years, they must have a way of getting the tenant out, rather than waiting until the end of the tenancy period. Shelter has accepted this and the Government have established a working party on it. That is being looked at as a quid pro quo. Shelter accepts that; it is not only landlords associations that have been pressing for it.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend made the point that landlord licensing is seen as a panacea, and the sound point that licensing applies to landlords and not properties. It is thought that that panacea will deal with rogue landlords, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) has suggested, there is the question of property and stock conditions in both high and low-demand areas. Is there not a case for extending landlord licensing to include stock condition and other criteria to deal with those problems?
Mr Betts
The Committee called for more flexibility in licensing—perhaps that covers my hon. Friend’s point.
The Committee recognises the need for more powers and action in one or two other areas to improve standards. We call for the possibility of fixed penalty notices, so that local authorities can deal with less serious offences at relatively low cost. The Government are consulting on the range of measures that should be available. We also say that, when a landlord lets a property in an unfit condition and is prosecuted, it should be possible to claw back any housing benefit paid or any rent paid by an individual. We are pleased that the Government are consulting on that proposal.
One additional matter that the Committee did not get into—we might have a look at it in the autumn—is what happens when landlords are taken to court. That goes back to the fact that authorities are strapped for cash, as many are, and have limited resources. If a landlord is found guilty, the court should award the authority the full cost of the action. Sheffield, my local authority, advised me the other day that it has brought five successful prosecutions of landlords in recent months. On each occasion, it has not been given its costs back—it got back roughly 50% of its costs in total. That is not acceptable. We ought to put pressure on the courts—perhaps the Minister’s colleagues in the Ministry of Justice could do this—to recognise that, when effective action costs money and the landlord is found to be responsible for and guilty of an offence, the costs should be returned to the authorities.
Finally, there are two other points. On letting agents—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman mid-flow, but he has been speaking for quite a long time, and lots of other hon. Members want to speak. I hope his two points are brief ones.
Mr Betts
Yes. On letting agents, the Committee is pleased to see a lot of demand for regulation. We are pleased that the Government are introducing a redress scheme, but are disappointed that the code of practice backing it up will not be mandatory. There ought to be more Government action on the lack of transparency in relation to fees charged by letting agents. They should not leave it to the current legislation, which needs tightening.
Finally, on rents—this point has already been made—the Committee are not in favour of rent control. We believe that introducing rent controls is a blunt instrument that is more likely to curtail investment in the sector. Things should probably be done on local housing allowances, which could sometimes artificially inflate rents. There was evidence from Blackpool on that.
To summarise, the Committee is pleased with many of the Government’s responses. We have concerns on the points I have made and are looking forward to Government action. The Committee will monitor that and look to the Government’s proposals to stimulate extra building in the private rented sector and other sectors to deal with the real problem in housing: the shortage of supply.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee. I have much sympathy with many of his points, but I welcome his generous and well deserved tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). I am delighted to see him in the Chamber. He did a great deal in the sector in his time as a Minister and his work is appreciated on both sides of the House.
I declare an interest—it is in the register—as owner of a single property that I let out. That puts me in the same position as many private landlords, the vast majority of whom have a small property portfolio—it is generally fewer than 10 properties. I am also interested in the debate as a London MP. The private sector is particularly important in London, where housing costs are acute. I will then deal with the last point made by the Committee Chairman, which is on recommendation 30 of the report, on rents and affordability. I welcome the Select Committee’s view that rent control is not the answer, and I also welcome its view that what is really important is increasing supply. That is certainly critical to us in London.
The Government have taken commendable steps. The establishment of the Build to Rent fund, along with the raising of that fund to £1 billion, is a tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, and to the continuing work of his successor, the current Minister. The £10 billion in loan guarantees for the building of homes specifically for private rent is another important step. So the Government are doing a great deal, but we should be prepared to think outside the box and think about other, more imaginative ways of leveraging private as well as public money into the private rented sector.
We all know that it is important for us to produce not just good-quality homes—and the quality of private rental stock is variable—but homes that will give people a degree of stability. An interesting comment was made in the pre-Budget submission by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which pointed out that a lack of affordable housing for rent in the private rented sector, and the difficulty experienced by many people—including many young professionals in London—in moving into market housing are increasingly presenting a potential bar to London’s economic competitiveness. It quoted a designer in London—very sensibly, I think; after all, the creative industries are an important part of the economy—who said:
“When my employees see their rents shoot up, they come to me for a pay rise that I can’t afford to give them. This means I am always at risk of losing my most talented and experienced staff.”
I think that many London business people will recognise his problem.
Jeremy Corbyn
I, too, represent a London constituency. Rent levels in the private sector are rising astronomically all the time, out of all proportion to the value of the properties involved. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the solution must be a rent regulation scheme of some kind, possibly beginning in London? Would that not stabilise the situation, and enable us to retain the diversity and population of our city?
Robert Neill
Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about rents rising in London, I do not agree with his conclusion. I do not believe that trying to manipulate the market in the way that he suggests can be a long-term solution to the problem.
Mr Prisk
My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the role of individual landlords, but the key element of the Government’s present strategy is encouraging institutional investors, not dissimilar to those in Germany. Does he agree that that is the best way in which we could increase supply, choice, quality and indeed the longevity of terms in the manner he has described?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the main point that I wanted to make in my speech. It is precisely because there have not been funding models to attract institutional investment that money has not been invested for long enough periods to underwrite the longer-term, more stable tenancy arrangements that we would all like to see. I think that what has been done so far is an important step forward, but it is ironic that under Governments of both political persuasions we have lagged somewhat behind other countries when it comes to leveraging institutional money into the private rented sector. REITs—real estate investment trusts—have never taken off in this country as they have in many others, and I think that that is a shame. Some adjustments to the fiscal treatment of those vehicles would be helpful.
Robert Neill
I think that this is a classic case of “It is not an either/or scenario”. We certainly need to take steps to improve the image of the sector, which I believe is often unfairly castigated. A good deal of action is suggested in the report, and I would probably agree with the hon. Gentleman on some helpful steps that we could take. However, I think that we must do that in parallel with creating mechanisms that will bring in the institutional money. The two go hand in glove: they are two sides of the same strategy that we should be adopting.
I want to say a little about what we could do to improve institutional investment in the private rented sector. There are obstacles, and this brings us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). In some cases land for private sale may be worth more than land for long-term rental. There are issues with speculative costing and valuation methods. We also need to look at whether there is some scope for using the private rented sector to create an income stream that could generate a source of cross-subsidy for affordable housing units, particularly in regeneration schemes, as rents rise. The current models we have tend to put the subsidy at the beginning of the system, in effect through the planning gain being taken out, with the consequence that the landowner takes a lesser price on the sale or the market housing will be inflated a little to pay for the subsidy that comes via section 106 or the planning gain.
That does not help in respect of the longer-term funding streams we would like to see, however, and I hope the Minister will think about the following. I recently had the opportunity to talk with representatives of the New Economics Foundation. They have been doing some very interesting work in this field, and I commend the work in particular of Alicia Weston who has been doing some very interesting research. They have come up with a model that merits further consideration. It is a model for a defined income scheme that is designed to bring forward more rented housing. It allows private rental incomes to subsidise the rents of affordable units on a rolling basis and therefore gives the ability to have a long-term income flow. Indeed, it almost gives a bond that can be available to back up the investment.
The housing that is created stays in the rented sector for the life of the scheme. One cannot guarantee beyond that, but that would none the less give valuable supply increases. A new form of contract would be required, which would be perfectly doable within current English law, between the local authority and the housing association, so that rather than setting a specified level of affordable housing on the site, the allowable income from the site is what is set. That income is made up of a combination of market and affordable rents and their levels are allowed to flex in order to make up the defined income. Provided there is the income, which is guaranteed and is therefore a quasi-bond, there is the stream to cross-subsidise. Under those circumstances, if market rents were to rise, as they have in London recently, the excess income would cross-subsidise more affordable housing. Conversely, if there is a revenue shortfall some affordable units can be switched to market rent, but the integrity of the income stream is preserved, and therefore the integrity of the investment model. That will give local authorities a semi-guaranteed stream that is not guaranteed by the public purse, but which creates something almost as good as a bond. I hope the Minister will look seriously at that. There are some practical issues that we will need to deal with, but pilot schemes are being considered around the country and I hope the Department will give schemes such as this one a fair wind.
There is an advantage for housing associations there, too, because that more stable income stream is worth more to them and the increase in value will allow them to subsidise more housing or to unlock further sites and land for rented housing, either using a mix of the private rented sector or just affordable. This also encourages housing associations into the private rented sector, co-operating with institutional money, which might be an interesting approach to pursue.
If applied sensibly, this scheme could lead to increased institutional investment in the private rented sector. I hope the Minister will look at that and encourage it. That can be done in respect of the whole scheme or simply the section 106 element. There is a degree of flexibility. I do not pretend it is a silver bullet, but we do need to think outside the box in leveraging in institutional money. There are a number of possible routes, and I think this particular one may be very timely.
Overall, a healthy private rented sector is an important part of the housing mix, especially in large cities such as London, where the nature of the population frequently means that for a period of their lives people may well want the flexibility of living in the private sector before moving on to house purchase. They are likely to be earning incomes that mean they would never qualify for social rented housing, but they cannot at the moment access the market readily. Finding models that produce adequate housing supply for people in that situation is crucial for the health of London, my city, and of all the major conurbations in this country. I hope the Minister will think about that as a model that is worth pursuing and that this report will generally find favour with the House. I also commend the Government’s response to it, which is a constructive one.
Jake Berry
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my previous intervention I failed to draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interest, so I just want to set the record straight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Thank you, Mr Berry. That is clearly now on the record and is therefore in order.
We now come to Mr Mike Kane’s maiden speech, to which the normal conventions of the House apply.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It was one of my predecessors, Alf Morris, who recruited me to public life. He said in his maiden speech that
“it was Aristotle who held it to be the essence of probability that some improbable things will happen.”—[Official Report, 12 November 1964; Vol. 701, c. 1280.]
And here I find myself, as only the fourth elected Member for the Wythenshawe and, now, Wythenshawe and Sale East constituency.
I must from the outset acknowledge the role played by the Prime Minister in my success. In a rather heated exchange at Prime Minister’s questions before the by-election, he and the Leader of the Opposition clashed over my candidature in the election. I want to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for the ensuing publicity in Manchester, helping Labour to secure one of the highest ever shares of the vote in the history of the constituency.
I want to thank the electors of Wythenshawe and Sale East for returning me here and many Members on both sides of this House for the welcome I have received since coming here. It will be a privilege to sit on these Benches as a Labour MP, following in the footsteps of Keir Hardie, who created the party 114 years ago and is a hero of mine. It filled me with immense pride to welcome the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), to the constituency twice in recent weeks.
I wish to pay tribute to my predecessors. In November 1950, the first MP for Wythenshawe, Eveline Hill, a Conservative, won the ballot for a private Member’s Bill and introduced the Deserted Wives Bill, which would have given security of tenure to women who had been deserted by their husbands after the war. Without enough votes, the Bill fell. In 1952, she, along with two female colleagues, wrote to The Times urging Conservative associations to adopt more women to help secure more progressive legislation—60 years later it would seem that the advice still applies.
I mentioned Aristotle at the top of my speech, and it is often an Aristotelian confluence of events that brings any of us to this place—in my case, they were events that no one from any part of this House would have wished for. Paul Goggins was an extraordinarily dedicated public servant, and was loved and respected by all in this Chamber. He was a friend to many in this place, including to me and my wife Sandra. Justice and peace were his driving passions, and his ministerial work in the Home Office and Northern Ireland reflected that. His work with the victims of contaminated blood products and asbestos-related diseases was an extension of Alf Morris’s work in helping people who were chronically sick and disabled. As I walk these corridors, I am being constantly told that I have big shoes to fill, and it is true—I do. However, I know that in one area at least, our shared and abiding passion for Manchester City football club, I will not let him down.
Paul believed in the Augustinian notion of the world as it is and the world as it should be. He believed that we should strive on all sides, despite the tensions we face in this place and in this country, to create a better world. Such tensions currently include: the bedroom tax—or spare room subsidy; welfare reform; how to create a stronger economy; and the worrying situations we face in Syria and Ukraine. We cannot create that better world together without those tensions, and where better to do that from than the House of Commons, which has been the world’s leading instrument of revolutionary but peaceful societal change.
I am proud to have been born in the constituency, to have lived in the constituency all my life and to have taught in the constituency. Now I am proud to represent the constituency. If we are to ensure that Wythenshawe and Sale East is to continue as a thriving place in which to live and work, supporting our transport infrastructure will be critical. The country’s first municipal airport, Manchester, lies within the boundaries of the constituency. Granted a licence in 1929, it was established in 1933 by the Manchester city council by just one vote—56 to 55. Now it is one of the biggest drivers of the economy in northern England.
Light rail is critical to the constituency. There is a long-established line through Sale and a route in development through Wythenshawe to Manchester airport. Heavy rail is also critical, with the establishment and growth of the rail hub at Manchester airport. Unfortunately, we still have no railway station on the Stockport to Chester line that passes through the constituency. We look forward to welcoming High Speed 2 and its station in Wythenshawe at some stage in the future.
Speaking of HS2, Edward Watkin, who was a Member of this place in the 19th century and a resident in Northenden in my constituency, oversaw the construction of the great central main line, a purpose-built high-speed railway line of its day; and also oversaw a failed attempt to dig a channel tunnel under the English channel to connect his railway empire to the French rail network. That vision was realised only l00 years later, but as Disraeli said 200 years ago:
“What Manchester does today the rest of the world does tomorrow.”
More unusual routes through the constituency include the trans-Pennine trail, a cycling and walking route along the banks of the River Mersey, an off-road intercontinental route from Hull to Liverpool in the UK, and a route from Galway to Istanbul across the rest of the continent. The Bridgewater canal is also highly significant. Built by the Duke of Bridgewater in 1761, it brought coal to power the industrial revolution in Manchester, which changed the world.
To create that better world that we all want to see, we must continue to champion the people whom we represent, to listen to their stories and to help them build their own power through strong relationships and action. Eveline Hill believed in a better world in which deserted wives would have greater rights and in which there would be more representation and diversity in this Chamber.
Alf Morris believed in a better world for people who were chronically sick and disabled. He successfully introduced a ground-breaking private Member’s Bill in 1970, recognising their rights to lead a life of dignity and worth. Likewise, Paul Goggins believed in that better world for people with HIV and hepatitis C infection from contaminated blood products and for asbestos victims.
As the son of Irish immigrants, I am proud to serve in this legislature. My parents strived for a better world. I remember at the age of 10 being rehoused in an affordable three-bedroom council house. I saw how that lifted their spirits. I envision a world where all people can have a home, regardless of their status, that lifts their spirits and does not sap their energy; where people can access the job of their choosing and be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace; where more people are paid a living wage and are free from the tyranny of the loan sharks and where people have access to fair credit.
The primary purpose of our leadership in this place must be to create more leaders, not followers. St Paul in his letter to the Ephesians implores us all to lead a life worthy of our calling. I hope to do so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that his speech, which was his first from the Opposition Benches, was both witty and excellent. I am sure that those on the Government Benches join me in wishing him many happy years—on the Opposition Benches.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate, which has been led so well by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is an excellent Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee. He guided the production of last year’s report and, indeed, our reply to the Government’s response. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There are some 9 million people in the private rented sector. As we have heard, that sector is now larger than the social rented sector and, in many years, it will catch up with the so-called owner-occupier sector. Those who talk about owner-occupation should remember that most people who buy a house do not actually own it. They have borrowed the money to buy the house, but it will be 25 or 30 years until they can say that they own the property in which they live.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I do not want to distract my hon. Friend from his speech, but may I bring to the House’s attention recommendation 37 of the report, which deals with data quality? It cannot be found in any of the English housing statistics the proportion of homes that are leasehold, which is something that gives rise to a whole set of problems. Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership estimates that the number is 5 million, but those homes do not get much attention, so perhaps the Select Committee will examine what more needs to be done in that area.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the Committee will have to examine that matter further.
In the borough that I have the privilege of representing, there are twice as many privately rented homes as there are properties owned by registered social landlords. That dwarfing of the social rented sector gives rise to a series of problems. In London, and especially the outer London suburbs, owners no longer sell properties, but vacate them and rent them out privately. The properties are often rented as houses in multiple occupation, but without them being registered as such, which creates the problem that many single individuals are renting properties collectively. Such people are often young men from eastern Europe who live together in one big house. There are many properties in which beds are rented out for eight hours a day, meaning that three individuals will occupy one bed in a room in sequence when they are not fulfilling their jobs and roles in society.
The HMOs in this country that are registered are few and far between, so I want the Government to put in place much more stringent registration requirements for HMOs. There are only 89 registered HMOs in my borough, but I could take Members to a single ward in Harrow in which there are more than 89, but they are unregistered, and therefore unlicensed and unregulated. As the report shows, we clearly need to deal with the problem of standards, and the Government need to take more action on the registration and regulation of HMOs.
That takes me on to the problem of beds in sheds, because the fact is that unscrupulous individuals are using relatively high rents and high demand for housing—throughout the country, but especially in London—to force people to live in substandard accommodation. I made a long speech about the private rented sector in the pre-Christmas recess debate. I will not repeat some of the points I made about the condition of properties and the problems in the sector, but I commend what Slough council did to draw up a heat map of its borough to ascertain the number of properties in which it was likely that there were bed in sheds. My own borough, Harrow, was not given Government money for the purpose but has just done a heat map of the area. We discovered 329 properties with buildings outlying or adjacent to the main house that are occupied. I am told that, as a result of the exercise, the police have also found a number of cannabis farms, which are another threat, not only because the domestic properties in question are no longer available to rent, but because cannabis farms lead to illegal trade. Clearly we need much stronger government intervention and much stronger Government support for local authorities to ascertain all the unscrupulous landlords who are not registered with anyone, but who are cramming people into substandard accommodation and ripping them off in the rent they charge.
During the debate, we have heard about the problems caused by the lack of stock, but we should be clear: it is a scandal that the last Labour Government presided over the lowest level of housing development since the 1920s. The reality is that planning permission was granted for relatively few properties and, sure enough, few properties have been completed in the past three years because of the lack of investment and the failure of the Labour Government to make it happen. I commend the Under- Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), and his predecessors for taking action to encourage new housing development, which will lead directly to improvements not only in the private rented sector but in all sectors of the housing market.
During the stages of producing our report, the Committee looked at evidence from a wide variety of sources. One of the concerns expressed was about the regulation of managing agents, and I want to draw out the absolute scandal of the charges that unscrupulous managing agents levy not only on landlords but on applicants for rental properties. Frequently those charges are excessive, going beyond reasonable costs, and are levied multiple times, as the agents charge both the landlord and potential tenants. For example, we heard evidence of hundreds of pounds being charged for credit checks that, broadly speaking, would cost between £8 and £10 to conduct. That is a scandal. There is a need for clarification and more regulation in that regard.
In certain areas, the bureaucracy involved in registering is also a problem. The borough of Newham has introduced a policy of registering every single private rented property and requires landlords to fill out the same complicated form for every single property they rent out. The Select Committee has not yet had a proper answer from the Government about whether that is actually a requirement. I would welcome the Minister stating his view, not necessarily at the Dispatch Box tonight but in the future, that people do not need to do that. If the landlord in question is a large-scale, reputable landlord, the simple fact of registering their ownership of a property in the borough should be sufficient, but there is no reason why a small-scale landlord—one with, say, fewer than 10 properties—should not fill in the necessary forms and register properly, because it will need to be checked and verified that they are acting in a particular way.
I remind colleagues that for most landlords in the private rented sector, the yield on capital employed is in the order of 3% or 4%. Most people who rent out property privately are not necessarily doing it for the income—the review—they gain, but for capital growth. At present, interest rates are historically low.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Where a former council property, which has often been bought with a very large discount historically, is let out at five or six times the rent charged by the appropriate local authority, that bears no relationship whatever to the capital employed and, frankly, is just plain greed.
Bob Blackman
Clearly there are issues around where there is greed and where there is not. I am coming to a particular issue that is of importance to the sector.
Given that the yield is relatively low—an average of 3% to 4% is true across London and may be true across the rest of the country as well—and given that that money can be borrowed at perhaps 3% or 3.5%, a single half of a percentage point increase in the Bank base rate would lead to an increase of almost 20% increase in the amount of money people are paying their lenders for their mortgages. Think of the effect of that on rents. Given that the yield is only 3%, imagine if there were a 20% or 25% increase in what landlords must pay in interest rates for their mortgages. The effect of that would be enormous on rents. It would have a knock-on effect on the housing benefit bill because, in many cases, housing benefit is paid to those in low-paid jobs, particularly in areas of London. That will be a clear concern in the coming weeks and months.
One of the things that I would stress—it is important that we send out this message—is that it vital that we have a Government who continue to bear down on interest rates and maintain reducing the deficit as key. That is one of the reasons why we cannot let the Opposition have any say in Government or on housing policy.
The final issue that I want to raise briefly is the key issue of the length of tenancy that applies. One of the key issues from our report was that we should have longer tenancies and more settled arrangements for families children in schools who are building up a community of interest, rather than potentially having families evicted after a six-month shorthold tenancy. However, that must go hand in glove with the ability of landlords to be able to evict tenants who do not pay their rent or who badly misbehave. That has to be one of the things where we will need intervention. We need the Government to take action to promote longer tenancies, and we need more responsibility from landlords and from tenants. We then need applicable rates where rents will rise with inflation so the position is more flexible for everyone in the housing market. We need lenders to recognise that longer tenancies are to their benefit, and to the benefit of their borrowers and of the people who reside in the properties.
Landlords will always say that a good tenant is worth keeping and worth keeping happy. A good tenant will say that they are happy in a property, that they want to stay and that they want a long-term relationship with the landlord. Bad tenants who do not pay their rent or who misbehave or cause antisocial behaviour clearly need to be evicted, and quickly, at the least possible cost to the landlord. If we can get some answers from the Minister tonight on those issues, that will be of great help to the sector and the rest of the market.
Finally, we have to be clear that this is a market. If we intervene in a market, it can have untold consequences and possibly consequences that one was not anticipating. This is one of the areas where we have to proceed carefully because we do not want to distort a market and cause further problems. With certain targeted interventions comes the potential for improving the market and for improving the lot of tenants and landlords combined.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I join the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on his maiden speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed—it certainly made me laugh. I wish him well as he tries to follow in the steps of St Paul. I do not mean Paul Goggins, although for many of us he was a bit of a saint, but St Paul of the Bible, who took on many people in government before his premature demise.
I worry that I am treading on old ground when I say that we are currently in the midst of the biggest housing emergency in a generation, but it is worth repeating that we continue to build less than half the number of homes we need to keep up with demand, if only to hammer home the severity and scale of the problem. All the while, private landlords, many of whom leave much to be desired in the caring and service department, continue to hike rents, often at the expense of the taxpayer, who has to foot the bill for many people forced by the failures of Government to claim housing benefit.
I am therefore pleased to welcome the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report and its conclusions, which cover: simplifying the law; promoting rights and responsibilities; proper enforcement powers for local authorities; better regulation; a crackdown on unfair charges; longer and more secure tenancies; and a renewed effort to boost housing supply in order to increase choice, quality and affordability.
Sadly, I cannot say the same for the Secretary of State’s response. He writes of burdensome red tape hampering private landlords, proportionate regulation that will let them off the hook and measures that will give tenants the know-how to demand longer-term tenancies, stable rents and better quality accommodation, to avoid hidden fees when renting a home and to demand better standards, but all without any real requirement on landlords to agree. He also writes of the
“small number of rogue landlords”
who need to be dealt with, and optional model tenancy agreements that no one needs to adopt. It is not exactly a charter for the sector—certainly not for tenants. I welcome the funds to encourage more people to build new properties for rent and the compulsory redress scheme, although it is not clear how vulnerable tenants will take on the might of landlords.
However, none of that will deliver the house building revolution we need. A great concern is that the housing crisis is not a problem that exists in isolation—quite the opposite. A failure to build is but one link in a chain reaction that is having damaging effects for many people. With housing costs increasing, real wages falling and energy bills rocketing, not to mention the other bills that we must all factor into the cost of living, the chronic shortfall in building is driving that crisis.
Hard-working people across the country are being left unable to afford the homes they need. The average home now costs eight times the average wage. It took just three years for an average family to save for a deposit on a home in 1997, but today it will take the same family 22 years, if they are able to do so. But the number of affordable homes built over the past year dropped by more than a quarter.
As I sit on the bus each evening going to my Battersea flat, I am amazed by the number of apartments being built along Battersea Park road, each a tiny box costing several hundred thousand pounds. On behalf of the people of north-east England, I envy London the thousands of jobs and—in this apprenticeship week—the hundreds of apprenticeships that have been generated on those sites. It is just a shame that the vast majority of Londoners will never be able to buy and live in those apartments and will have to rely on the private rented sector instead. I could advise those people to move north, even to my constituency, where they will be able to secure a family home for a fraction of the cost of some of the box-sized apartments in London. The cost of living and quality of life are better, too. But why would I advise them to move to a region starved of housing investment, despite the efforts of our local authorities, and where unemployment continues to rise in most parts?
I would offer a solution. The Government could work to restore the north-east by encouraging some of the multi-million pound investment in housing and industry we see in the south-east to move north. Do that and build on the region’s successes, which include being a huge exporter of manufactured goods, including petrochemicals, steel, cars and a whole range of other goods. If houses could be delivered across the north-east at just a fraction of the rate in the south, we could have our own boom time.
What is most alarming about the shift away from home ownership is the simultaneous shortage of affordable and social housing. That extends far beyond the scarcity of one-bedroom properties that is blighting the socially rented sector as a result of this Government’s malicious bedroom tax, and reaches past the confines of London where rents are increasing by as much as 10% a year. Across England, 5 million people are on local authority waiting lists for social housing. As a result, the private rented sector plays and will continue to play an important role in meeting our housing needs. However, all too often private renting is unaffordable, unstable and subject to poor conditions and bad management.
The recent English housing survey for 2012-13 has shown that, for the first time, the private rented sector has grown larger than the social housing sector, with 4 million households compared with 3.7 million. The trend towards growth in the private rented sector is self-reinforcing, driven by the combination of factors that confront aspiring buyers looking to get on the housing ladder. People want to buy, but cannot do so as little affordable housing is available. They cannot even save a deposit while renting because of the shortage of low-cost social housing. To make matters worse, that all comes at a time when real wages have fallen at a rate of 2.2% a year since 2010—the longest such period in half a century.
One of my primary concerns is that so many homes in the private rented sector continue to fail to meet the decent homes standard. Although the number of houses in all sectors failing to meet the required standard has fallen in recent years, one in five households—almost 5 million properties across the country—are still substandard. In the private rented sector, however, a third of all properties fail to live up to the expected benchmark, the highest proportion of non-decent homes in any sector.
Some in the private rented sector would have us believe that they have been cleaning up their act, as the proportion of private rented sector homes classed as non-decent has fallen from 47% in 2006 to 33% in 2012. That is all very well, but that statistic conceals the fact that the absolute number of non-decent dwellings did not decrease over the period. Private landlords could take a lesson from the social rented sector, just 15% of whose properties miss the decent homes standard—although that, of course, is 15% too many.
Proportionally, roughly three times as many homes in the private rented sector failed to meet the decent homes standard as a consequence of disrepair or poor thermal comfort—two key indicators of housing quality—compared with the social rented sector. Private landlords could learn much from my own Stockton-on-Tees borough council’s work on insulating hard-to-heat private properties; Tristar Homes is doing the same in the social sector.
There is a broad consensus that the reputation of responsible landlords in the private sector is being undermined by a minority of criminal landlords who deliberately prey on the vulnerable, but there are problems that we cannot overlook and sweep under the carpet. There are the “couldn’t care less” landlords, the absent landlords and the anonymous landlords who are happy to take the rent but do nothing for their tenants. Some let properties to anyone prepared to pay, and in some areas create misery for neighbours and the wider community.
Just a week ago, a distressed woman was in tears in my surgery after years of trouble from one set of aggressive and noisy tenants after another, placed next door to her by a landlord who takes no responsibility whatever. The situation is all too common. We know that when standards reach unacceptable levels, regulatory and enforcement tools are available to local authorities. However, using those tools is often a last resort, partly because of regulatory red tape, meaning that poor standards can persist for too long.
Yet of the 4 million households in the private rented sector, 25% received housing benefit in 2012-13 to help with the rent, up from 19% in 2008-09, as wage values drop, low paid part-time jobs replace well paid full-time ones and people are forced to fall back on the state. That means that the Government are, in effect, increasing subsidies for low quality homes. That would rightly be considered a scandal at any time—even more so when the money could be used to boost house building in the social rented sector and benefit some of the millions of people in need of high quality affordable homes.
Over the past three decades, in excess of 1 million council properties have been sold through the right-to-buy policy and its variants. About a third of the ex-council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords charging rents more often than not staggeringly higher than rents in the social sector. In the social rented sector, the average household rent in 2012-13 was £89 a week, while the equivalent figure for the private rented sector stood at £163, a difference of £74 a week. In some local authority areas in the north-east, as many as 72% of those in the private rented sector are entitled to rent support through housing benefit. With 80,000 households renting private accommodation entitled to housing benefit across the north-east region, private companies are benefiting massively from the welfare system. For example, Stockton Flats has taken more than £1.7 million from councils throughout the north-east, the north-west and north Yorkshire, including £775,000 from Stockton-on-Tees and £260,000 from Redcar and Cleveland. Similarly, Castledene Property Management has benefited hugely from Durham and Newcastle councils.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but I am cautiously optimistic that the hon. Gentleman is approaching his concluding comments, a point that I make in the light of the fact that other hon. Members—four to be precise—wish to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman is considerate of his colleagues and is approaching his conclusion—not his end, but his conclusion.
Alex Cunningham
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I have a few paragraphs to go.
The companies that act as private landlords are reaping the rewards of the housing crisis that is afflicting so many people in Britain, and driving growth in the buy-to-let market while stifling the building of the affordable and social homes that so many hard-working people want and need.
I will cut short my comments, Mr Speaker. I will simply say that the report from the Communities and Local Government Committee offered the Government robust recommendations, and I am saddened that the Secretary of State is not giving them much credit.
Mr Speaker
Splendid. The hon. Gentleman may have had a few paragraphs left, but they were short, which is encouraging.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I extend a warm welcome from the Liberal Democrat Benches to the new hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and congratulate him on his maiden speech. When I made mine years ago, it was terrifying. The hon. Gentleman acquitted himself admirably, as I am sure he will continue to do over the next 12 months. He said a lot about Aristotle, who said:
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
I think you will agree, Mr Speaker, that that is what we often do in this place when we listen to one another speaking across the divide.
It is clear that over the last 30 years, housing in this country has changed dramatically. The country has moved away from the high level of social tenancies that used to dominate the landscape. Now, more than 8.5 million people live in private rented accommodation. Many of the people I speak to most weekends at my advice surgeries dream of owning their own home. That dream has been handed down through generations, and it helps to create a stable family life and a meaningful existence. We cannot build a big society if we do not have roots in the society and the community in which we live. People who are subject to the transient churn of the private rented sector all too often fail to grip the community around them and engage positively with it.
People’s dreams of owning their own home are becoming harder to realise. The average age of a first-time buyer is rising, and is now 37, the size of deposit required to buy a home is ever higher, and bank lending has become more stringent in recent years. When ever-increasing house prices, due to shortage of supply and high demand, are factored in, a significant part of society may never be able to own the home to which they aspire, or will struggle for decades to do so. For them, the private rented sector is the only realistic option.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
I am sure my hon. Friend will explain how the issue affects his rural constituency. Will he acknowledge that it is a problem not only in the large urban stretches of London, but in smaller cities such as Norwich?
Stephen Gilbert
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The problem is not restricted to one part of our country, but is a national housing crisis. I consider myself to be a fairly astute observer of politics from time to time—perhaps on high days and holidays—but I fail to understand why the issue is not higher up the political agenda. The House is reasonably well attended today, but election after election passes without housing achieving the penetration of public consciousness that it deserves. A generation is frozen out of the housing market, millions of people are on waiting lists for social housing, and, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, millions more are living in inappropriate conditions in the private rented sector. There will be a moment at which housing bursts through, and when that happens I suspect that whichever party is best able to capitalise on the public anger will be rewarded at the ballot box.
The private rented sector sees a huge turnover and is inherently unstable. In my view—I share the analysis of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—that is partly because of the nature of the short-term tenancy arrangements within the sector. Often agreements will be for six months, or 12 months if you are lucky. Almost inevitably, there will be annual rent increases that are above inflation or above the retail prices index or the consumer prices index. As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, there is a failure by landlords to invest. This often creates a churn in the private rented sector that is undesirable for the people who are in it and for landlords, as well as for our wider communities.
We should not make the mistake of thinking that all the people who are renting are students or young people. In fact, half of all private renters are over 35 and a third are families. Moving is not always desirable for people who are trying to create deep links with local schools and other links with local communities, and it is our job as Members of this House to recognise that. The housing charity Shelter, which does excellent work across the piece but particularly on this issue, says that two thirds of renters in England want the option to stay in their properties for longer periods, and eight out of 10 want to know that they are not subject to the annual unpredictability of rent rises. This shows that the private rented sector is not fluid because of consumer choice; it is not what the individuals who are renting want to happen. They are victims of the market who are concerned about punitive rent increases and the motives of their landlords.
I fully endorse the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the Government need to bring forward measures on longer-term tenancies that will benefit property owners and renters. The Government should make overcoming the inherent short-termism that is built into the system a priority.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I commend the speech by my new hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who represents the great city of Manchester. He is one of the few people who could survive a headline saying “New MP for Sale” without being investigated by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I congratulate him on the wit and intellect that he used in his maiden speech, and on the tributes that he paid to his predecessors. One characteristic of both Alf Morris and Paul Goggins was that they commanded rather a lot of respect and affection on both sides of the House. That is a trick that most of us have not pulled off over the years, I have to say, and I hope he manages it. I pay tribute to some of the work that got him here, including his work on promoting a living wage and on trying to undermine and replace the loan sharks who batten on a lot of poorer people. I am sure that he is very welcome in the House.
I welcome the report by the Select Committee and commend the hard work that it has put in, but I am afraid that I do not think it goes anything like far enough in dealing with the problems of the private rented sector in London. Londoners are being priced out of London, and young Londoners are suffering most. Whether they are seeking to buy or to rent somewhere to live, all the options are being taken out of the reach of ordinary people. Over the years, housing policy in London has been a failure, and there is now a housing crisis the like of which I cannot remember in all the time that I have been involved in local politics.
When I first became an MP, I knew that a nurse at Great Ormond Street or University College hospital would not be able to afford to live in the area. Over the years I realised that, increasingly, junior doctors would not be able to afford to live in the area surrounding those two great hospitals. It has now reached the stage where a new specialist consultant can no longer afford to live in the area, which is a ludicrous and damaging situation.
Younger people who are starting careers and who want to start a family and to find a place to live are being pushed out by house prices and rents that have been rising out of hand. The badly off have been hammered and the situation in London is such that—these are official figures—the average weekly rent now exceeds 50% of the average weekly pay. It is not just the badly off who are being driven out; it is people on middling incomes and young professionals who are hoping to start a career. They certainly cannot afford to buy and increasingly they cannot afford to rent.
In the past few years, private rents have gone utterly mad. It is not just me who is saying that. A recent headline in the Evening Standard stated: “Half Londoners fear they’ll be forced to leave neighbourhood: Housing costs in London ‘driving us out’”. A few days later the paper had a similar headline: “Rents rise 8 times faster than wages”. These are unsustainable increases.
The fact is that the private rental market is failing. It receives a £9 billion subsidy from the taxpayer—£9 billion of housing benefit goes to the private sector. It does not reside in the pockets and handbags of the tenants; it goes to the landlords.
The situation now is such that rents are going up, but the supply is going down. Another headline from the Evening Standard read: “‘Generation Rent’”—that is how young professional people are being referred to —“suffers in overheated market as housing supply slumps.” The idea that high, unregulated rents are bringing resources into the private sector is simply not true. Some argue that some sort of regulation or control might harm the supply, but it could not harm it any more than the free market is managing to do at the moment.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank my right hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way and I agree with everything he has said. Does he accept that what is happening in our constituencies is, in effect, a form of social cleansing of those on housing benefit, who cannot afford to pay the gap between the benefit level and their rent and are thus forced to leave, which is damaging to all our communities, families and schools and to everything about London life?
Frank Dobson
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I think I invented the phrase “social cleansing” and sometimes I refer to it as the lowland clearances, which might be of interest to our colleagues in Scotland.
A headline in The Sunday Times stated: “Buy-to-let returns top 10 % a year: Investors piling into the market as yields soar”. The supply is not soaring, but the yields are and it is time we shifted the balance in favour of the tenants, with greater security, and longer tenancies. I believe that we cannot afford to avoid introducing rent controls. In fact, I would go further and say that there should be a progressive reduction in the level of some of the rents and that, in future, rent increases should be tied to wage levels.
We of course have the problem of the massive increase in house prices, which is a major factor in the rise in rents. One of the biggest factors is foreign buyers. Some of them buy property in London to live in, but they are a small minority, because most of them now buy residential property simply as an investment that they leave empty. To read another Evening Standard headline, “Super-rich from overseas flock to buy homes in London”. They do not intend to use them as homes; they are simply an investment that is better than putting their money in gold. They cause double damage to people in London: they drive up prices; and they take a lot of housing out of supply, because the places that they buy and do not occupy could be occupied by other people.
We cannot stop EU citizens buying residential property in this country, but we can stop other people doing so. The Government have established a precedent, because they have said that a private landlord must not let to a tenant who is not lawfully in the United Kingdom. I believe that we should change the law so that people cannot sell residential property to somebody who is not entitled to be in the United Kingdom. That would have a dampening effect on these massive rises in house prices.
As the Government are now scrambling around in contemplating sanctions against Russia, may I suggest that, as a pilot scheme, we quickly pass a law to prevent Russian oligarchs from buying houses and flats in this country unless they are entitled to live here, because all that happens is that landlords, estate agents and property companies are making money? They have contributed little or nothing to making London a better place to live. In the southern tip of my constituency, which includes Covent Garden, people—with their children or their parents—battled for years in the 1970s to prevent the wholesale destruction of Covent Garden and to preserve it as the great success that it has become, but they can no longer find anywhere in Covent Garden to live, because properties are bought up by other people, whether British bankers or foreign owners.
We also have the problem of Crossrail, which has cost £16 billion, most of which has come from the taxpayer. With a fanfare of trumpets, the people now running Crossrail have announced that some firm of valuers is predicting, again to quote the Evening Standard, that “Crossrail ‘will boost property prices by up to 25 per cent’”. It has cost billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but someone else will benefit from the increase in property values.
In all I have said, I have been very careful to avoid mentioning any socialists, and I will now mention a very unsocialist person. He said:
“Do you think it would be very unfair if the owners of all this automatically created land value due to the…enterprise of the community…had been made to pay a proportion…of the unearned increment which they secured, back to…the community?”
That was Winston Churchill at the great Free Trade hall in the great city of Manchester in 1909. He was right then, and he is right now. My view is that if there is to be a massive increase in property values as a result of Crossrail—I have always supported Crossrail—the public should get some of it back.
I will quote somebody else:
“Both ground rents, and the ordinary rent…are a species of revenue, which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry.”
He went on to suggest that rents are
“the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.”
That is what Adam Smith said in the “The Wealth of Nations”. If the Tories claim to be Churchillites or say that they support the Adam Smith Institute, it is about time that they adjusted some of their policies in line with what those distinguished people advocated.
It seems to me that there will be no prospect of ordinary folk continuing to afford somewhere decent to live in London until we introduce rent controls and reductions, introduce a tax on gratuitous increases in values accruing to landlords, and do something to stop the stinking rich foreigners buying up residential property in this country. When people talk about immigration, they say that there will be all sorts of burdens on the infrastructure. The suggestion seems to be that there will be such a burden only when poor people come here. The fact is that the people who are recruited by the City from abroad also want somewhere to live. They impose as great a burden on our housing stock as anyone else. I therefore think that we need a much more radical approach. That no doubt betrays me, yet again, as being not old Labour, but heritage Labour.
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply point out that the winding-up speeches from the Front Benches should begin at 6.40. I am sure that that leaves ample time for the observations of the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I genuinely enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). I also enjoyed knocking on doors in his constituency a few weeks ago in the pouring rain. I am pleased to have helped him get into this place.
I am speaking in this debate because I am a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee, which conducted the inquiry, and because this issue is thoroughly important to my constituency as many of my constituents live in the private rented sector. This inquiry is one of the most interesting and important inquiries we have conducted because it relates to a large proportion of the British population. I enjoyed the inquiry and found it particularly informative. I will canter through three issues: simplifying the legislation, empowering local government and thinking about the long term.
The Chairman of the Committee mentioned the importance of regulating the private rented sector, as did others. He also mentioned that tenants, landlords, local authorities and everybody else who is involved in the sector find the legislation complicated. It adds to the costs, causes confusion and creates a lot of hassle for those who want to rent a house. I hope that the Government will review the legislation to make it clearer and simpler.
As the private rented sector is so large nowadays, there is an opportunity for the Government to conduct a public information campaign on how it relates to tenants and potential tenants. There are also issues with letting agents, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and other Members pointed out. It is important that there is a breakdown of the fees that tenants are paying. There is a view that there should be a national licensing scheme, but although I agree that national guidelines could be useful, I think that is done better by local authorities. Local government needs the ability and flexibility to decide its own licensing schemes that are particular to the local housing area.
On localism, local authorities should be given more powers to tackle rogue landlords, but we should bear it in mind that there are also rogue tenants, as has been pointed out. There are 1.2 million landlords, many of whom could be described as accidental. The vast majority are good, but there are a few rogue landlords who treat people badly and prey on vulnerable people, particularly the old, students and immigrants. That needs addressing by giving local authorities greater powers to impose penalty charges and the chance to recoup costs.
Frank Dobson
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to address the problem of people who cause a massive nuisance to their neighbours, because the present laws and practices are quite pathetic?
Simon Danczuk
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend, and there is an issue about rogue tenants, which is the point I am making. On unscrupulous landlords, my right hon. Friend mentioned the subsidy through housing benefit, and those rogue landlords are often receiving public money, using it badly, and treating their tenants badly. There is a need for greater powers for local authorities.
On the longer term prospects, I have two quick points. First, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, there is a real issue of people wanting longer term tenancies. The Government can do something to help and assist that, perhaps by looking more closely at Germany in creating longer term tenancies, particularly for families and those who want to stay in a location for a lot longer than they currently do. Finally, in the long term more broadly we need to start building more homes. Whether this Government or the next get that under way—whichever party is in office—that is the key to this complex problem.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was being distracted by my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), and expressing concern about his reading list.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thought he was talking about antisocial tenants a moment ago.
Jeremy Corbyn
I was expressing concern about my Friend’s reading list—Adam Smith and Winston Churchill —but he assured me, and he is quite right, that there was a radical tinge to Churchill who also introduced wages boards. There was also a radical tinge to Adam Smith, although he was grossly misrepresented by the far right of the Conservative party many decades later. We will not debate that.
I congratulate my Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on his election and membership of this House, and on an absolutely superb opening speech. I have never heard anybody start with Aristotle. I hope he carries on in that philosophical mode. It was absolutely brilliant.
I will be brief, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, because those on the Front Benches wish to wind up the debate. Like my Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who has the neighbouring constituency, I represent inner London where the housing crisis is acute beyond belief. I hold regular advice bureaux, as all Members do, and my walk-in advice bureau on the third Friday of the month frequently lasts for anything from six to eight hours. The vast majority of the people who come have housing issues, and they are devastated by the situation they are in. They are often people who have been placed in the private rented sector by the local authority, which must house them because they are in desperate housing need and the family is in danger of homelessness, or has medical needs and so on. I do not blame the local authority for that. People’s rent goes up, their housing benefit is capped, they cannot afford to meet the gap, and the only alternative for them is to be moved out of the area to a distant place. At the moment, my borough does not place people outside London, but I suspect it is only a matter of time before all London boroughs decant people outside London because they simply cannot find the private rented accommodation to house them. Schools are disrupted when families are moved out and the community is weakened. The flats are then rented to somebody at an even higher rent.
I am pleased that the Communities and Local Government Committee has decided to concentrate on the private rented sector. I agree with much in the report, including the regulation of letting agents, better conditions in the private rented sector, the guaranteed return of deposits, and the protection of tenants against unfair eviction because they have the temerity to complain to local environmental health services.
I would like those measures to be introduced, but we must address the elephant in the room—the rent levels in the private rented sector. In answer to a question from me yesterday, the Minister asserted that private rented sector rents in London are going up by 1.4% per year. I tested that out on a few people last night in my constituency. The answers ranged from, “Which planet is he living on?” to “Did he mean 1.4% per week?” There is a total disconnect between the figures the Department works on and the reality of life for people in the private rented sector.
Government Members say, “We cannot interfere with the market,” but we are already doing so. As my Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras has pointed out, the public are putting £9 billion a year into the hands of private landlords. That is market interference. I support housing benefit, but it has an effect. No rent regulation is associated with housing benefit, and there is no control on rent levels. That must be addressed. I recognise that, in most of the UK, private rents are not excessively high. In many parts of the country, they are lower than council rents. When I talk to colleagues about supporting my ideas on the regulation of private rents, they say, “It’s not an issue in my area.” I fully understand that, but in London and on the fringes of London, and in one or two other cities, it is a massive issue. A third of my constituents live in the private rented sector. They ask me, “How much longer can I afford to stay in your constituency?” Some of those people are not poor—their salaries are quite good. They are young professionals who want to live in an inner-city area of London but can no longer afford to do so.
There is a knock-on effect on the London labour market. I have been to the Royal Mail sorting offices in my constituency, the local hospital—on many occasions—the fire station, the police station, social services, the council departments and other places, and have asked people where they live. If they are under 40, the chances are that they live at home with their parents. They do not want to—the parents often do not want them there either—but are stuck in that situation. If they have managed to buy a place, it is a very long way away from London, and they spend an awful lot of time and money on commuting, which has an environmental effect. A few years down the line, where will the nurses, the teachers and the firefighters come from if we do not address housing for people who need houses and places in London?
To my local authority’s great credit, it is building council houses. It hopes to complete about 2,000 with the housing associations on affordable or social rent models. That is making a good difference to a lot of people’s lives. It is a great pleasure meeting families who have lived in grossly overcrowded, poor-quality accommodation when they get a decent, permanent, reliable and secure council flat. That has changed their lives, and has changed the attitudes of the young people involved. However, we are not doing enough of it; instead, we are letting the market rip, and allowing all the problems that go with that to arise.
I have introduced a Bill under the ten-minute rule procedure, the Regulation of the Private Rented Sector Bill. I think that the majority of Members would find most of it unexceptionable. It deals with the need to regulate letting agents. We could start with Criminal Records Bureau checks—in some cases, that would be quite helpful—and then move on to full regulation of the way in which agents charge, the extent of their transparency, and so on. Not all letting agents are bad, just as not all private landlords are bad, but there are some pretty seriously rogue elements.
Agencies discriminate blatantly not only on grounds of ethnicity and race—as “Panorama” discovered—but against people on benefits. They say “We will not allow anyone who collects benefit to rent a flat through this agency.” Why do they do that? It is an interesting question, because someone who pays part or all of his or her rent by means of housing benefit will actually be a very reliable tenant. The answer can only be that the agencies do not want the attention of HMRC to be focused on the levels of income they are receiving.
We need regulation to deal with that, we need transparency in regard to how deposit schemes work and how tenants get their deposits back, and we need serious attention to be paid to the longevity of tenancies. Six months for assured shorthold tenancies is far too short; at least five years strikes me as a reasonable basis, although obviously there should be an appropriate form of get-out clause for people who, for instance, get a job in another part of the country. That can be worked out.
Other countries manage to regulate rents. Germany has a very regulated and a much bigger private rented sector, and, in general, private rented properties are owned by much larger landlords—co-operatives, insurance companies or others. When the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), told me that regulation of the private rented sector would bring about the economic ruin of Britain, I asked him whether that was a parallel with the economic ruin that Germany was facing as a result of its regulation of the sector. I am still awaiting his answer; I do not know when he will be able to give it to me.
My Bill proposes that local authorities should play a key role, because they understand the communities they represent. Newham council, Oxford city council and a number of other authorities have introduced registration schemes, and have sought to introduce some degree of regulation of the private rented sector. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Select Committee, pointed out, the problem is that it is the good landlords who tend to register voluntarily, and it is the rogues whom we want to be registered. Nevertheless, that is a good initiative and a good step forward. Moreover, if local authorities introduced their own private letting offices, they could use them for their own purposes when they have to house families in the private sector because they do not have enough council houses to deal with the demand.
The Bill also proposes that a combination of the Mayor and London boroughs should be given the opportunity to introduce a rent registration and rent regulation regime across London, which would have some bearing on the affordability of properties. That would give access to housing to a range of people who are currently excluded from it, and would thus create more stable, more harmonious communities.
I welcome the work that the Select Committee has done, and I welcome the fact that we are beginning to have a serious debate about the private rented sector. It should be remembered that more than a third of the communities in many parts of London are already living in the sector, and that, according to all the predictions, it will grow a great deal. I very much hope that this will become a big issue at the next election. I hope that parties including my own will understand the need for regulation and the need to limit the excessive rents that have been charged, so that we can bring about some sense of harmony and decency in this sector of the housing market throughout the country.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) on making an excellent maiden speech, and I can see he is going to be a real champion for his area. I, too, remember campaigning for him, and not only in the rain, but in the wind and rain, and it was very much worth it to have him here. I am sure his warm and moving comments about his predecessor are greatly appreciated on both sides of the House.
We have had a very well-informed debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and his Select Committee on producing such an excellent report and on highlighting the key issues relating to the private rented sector. It is a pity that the Government’s response to the Committee’s report did not rise to meet the sensible challenges it set out. Indeed it is still a mystery to me why one of the first actions of this Government when coming to office was to put an end to the regulation of the sector planned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). As a result, four years on, all we have is a consultation and we have lost a valuable opportunity to identify and address key issues facing the sector.
Both the Government’s response to the Committee’s report and the subsequent consultation paper on property conditions in the private rented sector show huge complacency. Yes, the Government are consulting in some areas, but they are not addressing the main issues that the Select Committee report highlights, such as affordability, poor standards in some cases, lack of security of tenure, lack of regulation for letting agents, illegal evictions and lack of protection for the tenant. It is important that they do address these issues, however, because, as lots of Members have said today, increasing numbers of people now rely on the private rented sector for their housing. We think the figure is now about 4 million households, which is the highest ever.
It is now more important than ever to address some of the long-standing and growing issues that are affecting ever more people. In its report, the Select Committee identifies as the first major issue the need for a simpler regulatory framework. There is a case to be made for consolidation of the legislation relating to the private sector, which is currently dispersed and complicated, and such action would make it simpler for tenants and landlords to understand their respective rights and responsibilities. Clarity will also make things more accessible for both tenants and landlords and may help to reduce some of the problems that arise, and consolidation would also make things easier for local authorities. What is absolutely vital, however, is that councils are able to put existing, and any subsequent, legislation and guidance in place locally in an effective way, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) pointed in his speech to the importance of enabling a localist approach and of getting good local policies in place.
The Committee is right to highlight the need to raise standards in the sector. Too often unscrupulous letting agents are ripping people off; people and families that are renting are subject to a lack of stability through short-term tenancies and unpredictable rent increases; and too many homes are of a poor standard. Some 33% of all privately rented homes are estimated to be non-decent, with one in 10 homes in the sector suffering from damp and mould.
The Committee’s report highlights the considerable concerns of many in the sector and identifies some real problems, but the report also offers potential solutions to these issues, recommending empowering local authorities to tackle problems and penalise landlords who fail to maintain the necessary standards. The report recommends that local authorities should be able to retain the money recouped to fund further work to raise standards.
However, despite the report’s extensive recommendations, the Government have taken a step back and simply published what they describe as a “discussion paper” which they make clear
“does not recommend any policy or legal changes”
to address the issues that have been raised about the sector.
While the Government’s consultation on standards in the sector is welcome, it comes almost four years into the Parliament and as a direct result of pressure from the Select Committee, campaigning organisations and the work of many of my colleagues on this side of the House. It does not make up for their failure to tackle this growing problem sooner.
The same applies to the Government’s attitude towards the licensing of landlords. At the moment, local authorities do not even know how many landlords are in their area or how to contact them. We want to help local authorities identify those bad landlords whose housing is not up to scratch and who break the law. That is why we have proposed a national register of landlords, but we have been clear that our aim is to empower and enable local councils to have tools to achieve that locally. The Select Committee’s report recommends giving local authorities the flexibility to license in their local area and to require landlords to be part of a regulatory scheme. The report proposes lots of different ways of doing that, but the important point is that local authorities need the powers. We want to ensure that if a local authority knows that poor standards are a significant problem in its area, it has the proper powers to deal with them.
Labour-run Newham council became the first council in the country to introduce a borough-wide mandatory licensing scheme for all landlords in June 2012, and it is seeking to prosecute 134 landlords for breaches under the initiative. Despite its success, many local authorities have told us there is too much bureaucracy and red tape in their way if they want to step in and introduce licensing schemes. Similarly, the Local Government Association believes:
“Councils should have greater local discretion on the qualifying criteria and the amount of evidence provided for local licensing schemes”.
Yet the Government appear insistent in continuing their lack of action on this matter, stating in their response to the Select Committee report that there are already tools available to local councils and ignoring the Select Committee’s valuable recommendations. Indeed, they are ignoring a great deal of the evidence from local authorities and others on this issue that was presented in detail to the Committee.
The same is true when it comes to the issue of houses in multiple occupation. As was suggested by the former housing Minister, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), this is a particularly thorny issue. The report considers HMOs in some detail, with paragraph 63 on page 26 considering article 4 directions. I know that the Committee received some evidence that article 4 directions could be used to limit the number of HMOs in a particular area, but I am not sure that article 4s are the right approach or the right tool for this purpose. Many local authorities tell us that they are a clumsy way of trying to control HMOs and that there should be an easier way for councils to regulate HMOs in their area, so we want to make it easier for local authorities to address local problems more simply and directly.
Similarly, we also want to make is easier for local authorities to deal with letting agents. According to estimates, some 4,000 managing and letting agents are entirely unregulated, in that they do not even belong to voluntary bodies that encourage a responsible approach to letting and management practice. It is a peculiarity of current policy that while estate agents, who hold very little money on behalf of their clients, are regulated, letting agents, who hold significant sums on behalf of landlords and tenants, are not. Good letting agents have a worthwhile role in providing professional input and support, but too often tenants and landlords alike are ripped off by unscrupulous letting agents. We have said we will regulate letting and management agents, and bring an end to rip-off fees. The Government’s moves to require letting agents to be part of an approved redress scheme are welcome, but their action comes only after prominent campaigning by Labour and, in particular, by my colleague in the other place Baroness Hayter. We think that without her efforts the Government would not move on this issue.
Another major issue identified in the Committee’s report is that of tenancies and rents. The report clearly says of the sector:
“No longer can it be seen as a tenure mainly for those looking for short-term, flexible forms of housing”.
We want to encourage the Government to take stronger action on introducing longer-term tenancies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) raised a number of points related to addressing affordability and supply issues right across the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) drew our attention to the particular issues of affordability and supply in London. The Select Committee did not focus in this report on supply issues, but it did in an earlier report on the financing of housing supply.
In conclusion, the Government need to look seriously at raising the supply of housing in the private rented sector. In doing so, they must ensure that we get not only additional supply but supply that is of good quality and at a reasonable rent. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how he will achieve that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and to the Communities and Local Government Committee for securing this debate. I welcome this opportunity for the Government to set out what they are doing in relation to private rented supply. I agree with the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) that this has been an extremely interesting debate. The content was thoughtful and the tone, right across the House, was completely appropriate. I know that members of the Committee have spent a long time deliberating on the issue.
We are pleased that the Select Committee produced this thoughtful and well-balanced report following its inquiry, and we agree with a considerable number of the recommendations. I am aware that there was a slight hint from some Members that we did not appreciate the work of the Committee, but let me say that I did appreciate the content of the report. I know that the Committee spent a long time taking evidence, and thinking about the report before reaching its conclusion.
The Government recognise that the private rented sector is playing an increasingly important role in the housing market. There are now just short of 4 million households out there, accommodating some 8.5 million individuals. Moreover, there is, increasingly, a diverse range of people living in the sector.
Overall, the sector is performing well. As the hon. Member for Sheffield South East said, it is the one part of the market that grew even in the darkest times of the recession. Supply is now beginning to respond to the growth in demand. I recognise that many of the actions that I will talk about later on specifically relate to the Government’s intervention in increasing that supply.
Rents are increasing more slowly than inflation. Let me say to the hon. Member for Islington North that I live on this planet, and that I cited a figure of 1.6%, not 1.4%. I recognise that the figures across London are higher, but overall, the Office for National Statistics is confident that the figure is 1.6%. Across the whole of England, the figure is 1%, which is significantly below inflation at this moment in time.
Overall, the quality of private rented sector accommodation is improving and satisfaction levels are high. In fact, 83% of the people who live in the PRS say that the accommodation is good. The vast majority of people—some 80%—move of their own choice; some 10% move by agreement with their landlord and some 9% by the landlord’s activities or actions.
We recognise that there are challenges that we need to address. For example, a lack of supply has led to a problem of affordability and a limited choice as a consequence, especially in hot spots around parts of London. The lack of professional landlords and the need to improve management practices in some parts of the sector are important. Legislation is in place—there is the Housing Act 2004—and we are taking action in certain areas. There is a need to change the balance. At the moment, some 78% of landlords are individuals who own one place, which they rent. We need to change that balance in favour of larger-scale providers.
Tackling rogue landlords is an extremely important part of our work. I recognise the enormous amount that local councils do, and the Government have allocated £6.5 million to addressing beds in sheds and poor-quality provision by enabling individuals to carry out not only raids and inspections but, importantly, prosecutions. There is growing demand for longer tenancies, especially among people with families, and we want to support them.
The Government want a bigger and better PRS, which is why we want to make private renting more positive. Although we have heard negative comments in the debate, private renting is an extremely important part of the housing sector. As we heard, the PRS is now bigger than the social sector, so it is important that politicians, practitioners and professionals challenge the behaviour of the small minority of individuals who, owing to the poor-quality provision that their tenants receive, undermine not only the sector, but other people’s businesses.
Through the schemes that we have introduced, we are trying to bring new entrants into the sector and to attract more institutional investment. We want to drive forward more larger-scale, professionally managed, high-quality and well-designed accommodation. We want to stimulate the construction of more housing. We want to empower and inform tenants by driving up standards and promoting choice. We want to increase the effectiveness of existing regulation, but when supplementary regulation is needed, we should act judiciously so that we neither deter investment nor add costs, thus putting pressure on rents. While we want to crack down on rogue landlords, we do not want to put extra burdens on ordinary landlords who are providing a decent service.
The Government have put forward the £1 billion Build to Rent fund. Round 1 was over-subscribed, and three contracts have been signed, while further ones are going through due diligence. Round 2, on which an announcement will be made soon, was significantly over-subscribed, with 126 applications worth £2.8 billion being received for a fund of only £721 million. Our guarantee scheme, which is worth £3.5 billion, will also secure new building in the sector. We want to introduce a redress scheme, a tenants charter and a model tenancy, as well as to crack down on the landlords I have mentioned.
I want to talk about Members’ contributions, and I must start with that of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). It is a convention in the House that one is gracious and welcoming to a new Member, regardless of our politics, and despite the fact that he is from Lancashire, I intend to comply with that protocol. He made a great speech. When I made my maiden speech only a few years ago, I was absolutely terrified, but he made a thoughtful speech and it was completely appropriate that he paid tribute to one of our former colleagues, Paul Goggins, who is greatly missed by Members on both sides of the House. I wish the hon. Gentleman a successful time representing the people of Wythenshawe and Sale East.
We heard thoughtful contributions from Members on both sides of the House, and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East covered many points. I want to maintain a positive relationship with the Communities and Local Government Committee. I served on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, so I know the immense work that a Committee does during its deliberations. The vast majority of the time, regardless of party, members of a Committee come together to discuss the issues thoughtfully, which is completely appropriate.
This Government are absolutely committed to making sure that the private rented sector grows bigger and better—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. This is where Lancashire overrules Yorkshire.
Debate interrupted, and Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Mr Deputy Speaker
Under the Standing Order, I am now required to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates set down for consideration this day.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the Serious Fraud Office supplementary estimate, which comes later, with the Justice Committee report, the agreed redactions and the Tchenguiz interests featuring in the Office of Fair Trading report on abuses of leaseholders, overvaluations of freeholds and the sale of managers’ flats, could the Question on motion No. 21 be put separately for approval?
Mr Deputy Speaker
But of course.
The Deputy Speaker put the deferred Questions (Standing Order No. 54).
Estimates 2013-14
Supplementary Estimates 2013-14 (Navy) Vote A
Supplementary Estimates 2013-14 (Army) Vote A
Estimates 2014-15 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates 2014-15 (Army) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2007-08 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2007-08
Estimates, Excesses, 2008-09 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2008-09
Estimates, Excesses, 2009-10 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2009-10
Estimates, Excesses, 2010-11 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2010-11
Estimates, Excesses, 2011-12 (Navy) Vote A
Estimates, Excesses, 2011-12
ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 2012-13 (NAVY) VOTE A
Estimates, Excesses, 2012-13
Supplementary Estimates And New Estimates, 2013-14
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 24 to 31 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved.
That the draft National Minimum Wage (Variation of Financial Penalty) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
Tribunals and Inquiries
That the draft Tribunal Security Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved
Social Security
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.
Co-operative Societies
That the draft Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions (Investigations) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.
Rating and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved.
Social Security
That the draft Income Support (Work-Related Activity) and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.—(Amber Rudd.)
Question agreed to.
Pancreatic Cancer
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As one Lancastrian to another, let me say that I am pleased to introduce this debate on access to new treatments for pancreatic cancer. It will become apparent why we are so pleased to get this debate at this time.
I want to start by reiterating some points I made about this dreadful disease in a debate in Westminster Hall last May that might help to set the context for this further debate today. Before I do, may I put on record my thanks to Pancreatic Cancer UK, Pancreatic Action, the all-party group on pancreatic cancer and others who have highlighted the impact of this disease? These include that great Lancastrian actress Julie Hesmondhalgh, who recently gave the disease some publicity in “Coronation Street”. More sadly there is the example of Kerry Harvey, who died at the age of 24 on 22 February and did so much in her last months to highlight the impact of this disease with the assistance of Pancreatic Action.
Pancreatic cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Approximately 8,500 people will be newly diagnosed with pancreatic cancer this year with around 7,900 people dying from the disease annually. Pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of the 21 most common cancers. Five-year survival rates are less than 4%; a figure that has barely changed in nearly 40 years. Pancreatic cancer five-year survival rates lag behind many other EU countries and are almost half of what they are in the US, Canada and Australia. Only 1% of the National Cancer Research Institute Partners' total research spend is directed towards pancreatic cancer. By way of comparison, £3,613 per death per year is spent on breast cancer research compared to £553 per death per year on pancreatic cancer.
Some 50% of pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed as a result of emergency admission—nearly twice that of all other cancers combined. Patients diagnosed as a result of emergency admission, compared to other routes to diagnosis such as routine GP referral, have significantly lower rates of survival. Pancreatic cancer patients have one of the least satisfactory NHS experiences of all cancer patients, evidenced by National Cancer Patient experience surveys.
If it is not too presumptuous, I would like to quote myself from the debate on 23 May 2012:
“Effective cures for pancreatic cancer remain stubbornly elusive, but we need to try to find ways to prolong patients' lives and to ease their pain and sufferings while always remembering that, with cancer, it is not only the patient who is affected but the people around them, including their family.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 93WH.]
The all-party group then found out that a new drug, Abraxane, in combination with standard chemotherapy was licensed for use in patients in the UK and Ireland with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Abraxane has been described as the biggest advance in pancreatic cancer treatment in almost two decades—for a disease, as I have already said, where survival rates have barely changed in 40 years.
As the drug has not yet been approved by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, it is not yet available on the NHS as a standard treatment. Pancreatic Cancer UK is very keen to ensure that patients are able to access Abraxane through the cancer drugs fund. The House will now see the importance of the debate tonight: the decision will be taken on Thursday 6 March—that is this week. Along with others in the Chamber, I would like to see the drug approved by the CDF this week and then eventually by NICE so that access to it is more readily available. We know that Abraxane is due to be reviewed by NICE very soon but this process takes a great deal of time, and it is time that pancreatic cancer patients do not always have.
One of my fears is based on my understanding of the way these new drugs are measured. This is based partly on what is called quality-adjusted life years which, so far as I understand it, is a measurement of the state of health and how long life is prolonged running from optimum health to death.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for bringing this important matter to the House’s attention. It is surprising how many of us know people, both personally and from our constituencies, who have been affected by pancreatic cancer. I have some figures from Northern Ireland that might help his argument. Only 14.2% of males and 10.3% of females live longer than a year after diagnosis. When we get to five years, those figures drop to 2.8% and 2.9% respectively. Early diagnosis is key, along with new treatments. That would increase the survival rate by 30%. Does he agree that a strategy covering all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be better for addressing the issue?
Eric Ollerenshaw
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. It is of course a UK issue, and one of the concerns is the regional variation in performance on early diagnosis and the impact that is having. We want to get rid of that.
I want to talk today about the new drug Abraxane. The vast majority of pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed so late that the benefit of any new drug can be measured only in months, rather than years. Our worry is that, compared with other cancers, that benefit might be deemed insufficient simply because it is measured in months and might not register highly on the quality-adjusted life years measurement scale.
That is why Pancreatic Cancer UK launched its Two More Months campaign, which highlights what patients would have been able to do with two more months, which is the average additional survival time provided by Abraxane. I have a few quotes from relatives of those who have died from pancreatic cancer:
“Two more months would have been a significant amount of time for Nicola, only 25 years old herself, to spend with her four year old daughter”.
That was from Chris, Nicola’s brother.
“Two more months would have meant my daughter Gemma might have got to wear her wedding dress and walk down the aisle with Adam”.
That was from Debbie, Gemma’s mum.
“Two more months would have seen my wife Jill finish her Open University Modern Languages degree and attend an international social work conference in Buenos Aires, both of which she would have been very proud of”.
That was from Dave, Jill’s husband.
“Two more months would have seen Andy and I celebrate our second wedding anniversary, and given us more time to prepare for what was to come”.
That was from Lynne.
For me, two more months would have meant one last Christmas with my partner—
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has done tremendous work on this issue and been a great advocate for all those affected by pancreatic cancer? I know from my experience of working in the hospice movement that time is the thing that all patients want. If that drug can provide just a little more time, surely it is something that all those families should be given.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and endorse what he says entirely. Does he agree that perhaps we should also consider going commando this Friday to raise male cancer awareness and show our general support for all cancers that people are struggling with today?
Eric Ollerenshaw
I am grateful for those well-timed interventions from my colleagues across the frontier.
What I am trying to get on the record is the fact that those two more months are critical in this particular cancer. Our worry is that two more months might not look good enough when the judgment is made, but for pancreatic cancer it is a massive improvement.
I also want to put on the record two other emerging possibilities. A useful and emerging new technology is NanoKnife. It carries out a process called irreversible electroporation, which destroys parts of the tumour while avoiding damage to vital tissue nearby, such as blood vessels. The process shrinks the tumour to a more manageable size, which might then allow more permanent surgical solutions. NanoKnife is currently available only through the private sector at one hospital in London.
A company called Novartis, has a treatment for neuroendocrine pancreatic cancer that is currently funded via the CDF in England. Although it is welcome that patients can access treatment via that route, we continue to argue for a long-term solution. In that context, we are worried about Andrew Dillon’s statement that, under the new system of value assessments that NICE is due to introduce in the autumn, only six out of 20 treatments assessed by NICE in the past year would be approved. A 30% approval rate is clearly not the long-term solution expected from the original concept of value-based pricing. In 2013, I understand, not one new cancer drug was approved by NICE. That issue, perhaps, is for a wider debate, but I hope the Minister understands that those arguing on behalf of pancreatic cancer patients are extremely worried about ever getting the new drugs on to the system and available for wider use across, hopefully, the whole United Kingdom.
Minister, this debate has been an unashamed appeal for support—from the charities concerned, the all-party group, the survivors and all those who have been affected by pancreatic cancer through the loved ones they have lost. We do not want others to go through our tragic experiences.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I should like to pick up on what he said about NanoKnife—there is also CyberKnife and Gamma Knife. Those are all modern, stereotactic treatments for cancer. I hope that he agrees that we need to concentrate not just on the drugs but on those particular types of radiosurgery, which can make sure that people live longer if they are given the trials that they need.
Eric Ollerenshaw
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Our point is that because of the poor pancreatic cancer survival rates and its late diagnosis, which is the key, it always seems that the pancreatic cancer patient is last in the queue. The quality of life assessments do not look long enough to justify a new drug or new radiotherapy, as has been pointed out.
Again, I pay tribute to Pancreatic Cancer Action, which got a great deal of press from an advert, not used at the time, saying, “I wish I had breast cancer”. That was effective in raising publicity about the impact of pancreatic cancer.
I am trying to put whatever pressure the Chamber is capable of exerting on the cancer drugs fund when it makes its decision on Thursday and on NICE for what it does to follow. Providing Abraxane and an extra two months could help ease this year’s 8,500 tragedies and start the process of making up for 40 years of lost hope.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this debate and setting the scene so well. Pancreatic cancer needs all our efforts if we are to make a difference. I pay tribute to pancreatic cancer patients up and down the land, including my good friend Sir John Mason, who is battling the disease, and all the families and friends of those with pancreatic cancer, as well as those working with and supporting them.
As the hon. Gentleman said, survival rates from the disease have not changed for 40 years. Abraxane gives the opportunity not only for two more months, but to bring about change and transform how the disease is dealt with in future. In the United States, there is already innovation in how the disease is being tackled. I hope that the people having to make these difficult decisions listen to this debate and take it into account when making the decisions in a proper and objective way. It is important that our voices echo those of people who are contacting us about the condition, including my constituent Maggie Watts who has assembled a petition of 45,117 names of people who are shouting for something to be done about this disease.
That is all I want to say; I wanted to add my support to that of the hon. Member the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood with whom I have worked on the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing this debate and leading it in the knowledgeable and able way that he has led other debates on this important subject. I will do my best to respond to his specific points, but there may be some that I will need to respond to after the debate.
It goes without saying that cancer is a terrible disease, and my hon. Friend spoke movingly of his experience, but all hon. Members know ways in which it has touched them and their families and friends. I pay tribute to the work that he and colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer have done to raise awareness of the disease. Its excellent report, “Time to Change the Story”, does much to counter common misconceptions about the disease.
My hon. Friend drew the House’s attention again to the particularly poor outcome for people who get the disease and the challenges in diagnosis. If we could match the best survival rates in Europe we could save an additional 75 lives a year. Clearly, if we exceeded those survival rates, more people would be saved.
Before I tackle my hon. Friend’s specific point about Abraxane, it is worth giving the context of other work that the Government are doing to support earlier diagnosis. We committed more than £450 million in funding over the four years to 2014-15. Sadly, there is currently no easy way of detecting pancreatic cancer and it can be particularly difficult for GPs to detect and diagnose it, especially in its early stages. However, to try to address the situation, the Department helped to fund a six-month pilot with Macmillan Cancer Support of a cancer decision support tool for GPs to help them to identify patients whom they might not otherwise refer urgently for this suspected cancer. Evaluation of the pilot is under way, and if it is found to be helpful, we will work with NHS England actively to promote its use. That tool was highlighted at a recent parliamentary event that some hon. Members might have attended.
We need to do more about earlier diagnosis and public awareness of the symptoms, which are often limited. As is often the way, I suspect that the recent “Coronation Street” story line has done more than many public health campaigns could have done to raise awareness. Yet again, well done to our broadcasters for covering some difficult issues and providing through Hayley’s sad story some important health education. It has reached many people, and we thank them for that.
On Abraxane, I am obviously aware of Pancreatic Cancer UK’s Two More Months campaign, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on this particularly well-timed debate. I am fully sympathetic to his points. As he says, two more months can mean so much to those who are affected by this cancer, and he gave some moving examples. We do not associate the disease with younger people. Sufferers are predominantly older but, as he illustrated, many people suffer at a younger age. I thank those who contributed to the report details of loved ones they have lost. My hon. Friend bears witness to his own loss, which we feel keenly with him.
I listened to my hon. Friend’s request that the recently licensed drug Abraxane should be made available from the cancer drugs fund. As he says, in the light of new evidence from the manufacturer, NHS England’s cancer drugs fund expert clinical panel is reviewing its earlier decision not to add it to its national list. One criterion in the scoring tool used by the panel is evidence of a drug’s impact on quality of life, which is what my hon. Friend spoke about. While I cannot in any way pre-empt the panel’s decision, I can fully understand how important this will be to people with pancreatic cancer. I will ensure that NHS England is made aware of tonight’s debate and the very good attendance. As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, that reflects the impatience of parliamentarians, on behalf of their constituents, to see progress on this issue, which we seem to have been stuck on for so long. I undertake to do that immediately in the morning to ensure that the information is with the panel ahead of its deliberations.
My hon. Friend will be aware that Abraxane has not yet been assessed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Partly because of these situations, we established the cancer drugs fund to ensure that cancer patients in England have better access to life-extending or life-improving drugs that are not routinely funded by the NHS. He may also be aware that Novartis’s drug Afinitor is included on the national list for the cancer drugs fund, alongside two other treatments for treating pancreatic and neuro-endocrine carcinomas. More than 44,000 patients have benefited from the cancer drugs fund since October 2010, and we have recently announced an extension to funding for the scheme.
Looking further ahead, NICE is appraising Abraxane for untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer and expects to publish its guidance to the NHS in January 2015. That may seem a long way away, but, as been mentioned, this reflects the robust, evidence-based technology appraisal programme that NICE provides to ensure that clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness is taken into account when we look at drugs and treatments. The Government believe that clinically appropriate drugs should be routinely available to NHS patients, and we remain committed to the rapid uptake of NICE-recommended drugs in the NHS.
My hon. Friend referred to recent decisions on cancer drugs made by NICE. I am sure he appreciates that there will naturally be fluctuations in the proportions of drugs recommended by NICE each year, so a more accurate picture can be gained from looking at all NICE decisions on cancer drugs to date. That shows that almost two thirds of its decisions on cancer drugs have recommended their use for all or some of the eligible patient population. Far from making appraisals tougher, the most significant change to NICE technology appraisal methods in recent years has been to introduce greater flexibility in the appraisal of potentially life-extending treatments for patients at the end of their lives, and that has helped NICE to recommend a number of new cancer drugs for use on the NHS. That speaks directly to the extremely pertinent points that my hon. Friend made about how someone who has had such a diagnosis will see an extra two months in the context of the end of life, given that the progress of the disease can be very rapid from the point of certain diagnosis.
Jim Shannon
In an earlier intervention I asked about a UK-wide strategy. Has the Minister considered that for all the regions?
Jane Ellison
The hon. Gentleman has made that point in other contexts before, and it is a perfectly good one. Of course, health is a devolved matter, but as regards research and what we know about drugs, there are lots of aspects on which England has taken a lead and on which the devolved Administrations co-operate. I regularly have exchanges of letters with my opposite numbers. When there are important lessons to be learned on behalf of all our constituents, we would naturally share that information and expect it to be looked at in all parts of our United Kingdom.
Our priority is to make sure that we get the best possible results for all NHS patients with the resources we have. That is why we have asked NICE to look at how drugs are assessed to ensure that patients can get the treatments they need at the best value for the NHS, and that the price the NHS pays is more closely linked to the value a medicine brings. These can sometimes sound like quite cold decisions, but they are designed to help us to have a sense of objectivity in what are always very difficult decision-making processes. I assure my hon. Friend that NICE will carry out a full public consultation before implementing any changes in the way that it makes these assessments.
My hon. Friend referred to NanoKnife, which was also mentioned in an intervention. I am advised, I am afraid, that NICE has published guidance on that procedure which states that current evidence on the safety and efficacy of irreversible electroporation for treating pancreatic cancer is inadequate in quantity and quality, and it recommends that the procedure should currently be used only in the context of research.
My hon. Friend mentioned research funding. We are often asked about the amount of funding put into one area or another and I always like to make the point that, rather than specifying subject areas, the National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health. These applications are subject to peer review and are judged in open competition, with awards made on the basis of the importance of the topic to patients and the NHS, value for money and scientific quality.
I have no idea whether parliamentary interest is part of that mix, but I cannot believe that it hurts at all. Such issues come up regularly, and whenever I meet people from different health institutions and the NHS I always make a point about the things in which Parliament has shown a particularly keen interest to debate and progress.
Jane Ellison
I do not think I have time, sadly, but I would be happy to speak to my hon. Friend after the debate.
I hope it will be of interest that the Government are investing a record £800 million over five years in a series of biomedical research centres and units, including £6.5 million of funding for the Liverpool biomedical research unit in gastrointestinal disease, which has a major focus on pancreatic cancer. Some really interesting things are coming out of the opportunities for biomedical centres.
Recruitment to studies associated with pancreatic cancer by the NIHR clinical research network has also increased more than fivefold, from 447 in 2008-09 to 2,744 in 2012-13, which is another measure of the increased emphasis and interest.
I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood for his campaigning on this issue and the work he has done to raise its profile in Parliament, and to all hon. Members for the interest they have shown. As I have said, it is great to see such good attendance at this debate. That is on the record and it is of great interest.
Tessa Munt
Do NICE and similar organisations accept reviews and evidence from other countries, be they in Europe or America, when they deliberate and make considerations, or is it only home-grown evidence that counts? Is there an acceptance of the views of clinicians from other parts of the world?
Jane Ellison
I will, if I may, take my hon. Friend’s question away and respond to it formally. Obviously, it is a matter for NICE and I will make sure that I get an answer for her. My understanding, however, is that an awful lot of peer-reviewed research from all around the world is looked at and that it is the quality of that research that is taken into account. I will respond formally to my hon. Friend and make sure that I have that absolutely right.
In conclusion, I thank those who have participated in this important debate and those who have stayed to show their support for it, which is valuable. This disease remains very difficult to treat, but the Government will continue to work with patients and charities—which have done so much good work—and with researchers, the pharmaceutical industry and, of course, the NHS to improve results for people with pancreatic cancer and to see whether we can make more rapid progress than we have made in the past four decades.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
The Right of Anton Kainga to Remain in the UK
Residence of the Bishop of Bath and Wells
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Scotland and North-east England Post-2014
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. This issue is of rising importance for the north-east of England. In six months’ time, the Scottish people will decide whether they want to remain part of Britain. Although it is right that that decision should be taken by them, it is not right to think that it will not affect the rest of Britain as well, especially the north-east of England.
Scotland and the north-east of England share an economic and industrial history, one based on shipbuilding, coal mining and steel works, for example. It is also fair to say that the Conservative party in both areas has been marginalised. That is a common identity that the north-east of England and Scotland share, and that economic history is important to the north-east of England even today. At Durham Tees Valley airport, some 35,000 passengers a year travel from my constituency to Aberdeen for the gas and oil industry, which shows how close Scotland is industrially and economically to the north-east of England.
Thousands of Scots and English cross the border between England and Scotland every day, without let or hindrance, to do a day’s work, but I believe that the Scottish National party has a twin-track approach to the English. On one hand, Alex Salmond has described the north-east as
“our closest friends in economic and social terms”,
and others have said that
“a stronger Scotland could act as a powerful advocate on issues of mutual concern to the north of England and Scotland”
and that there is
“a shared sense of values”.
That is great, but if all that is true, why does Scotland need independence to prove it further?
To the SNP’s internal Scottish audience, the English are those from whom the SNP wants independence, but to the north-east of England, according to Alex Salmond, we are Scotland’s closest friends. Call me old-fashioned, but I would not close the door on my closest friends by asking for independence from the rest of the UK.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
To follow the reasoning of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, is he saying that the Swiss are not friends with the Austrians or the people of Liechtenstein just because they do not share a Prime Minister? Surely, given that 250,000 people cross the Swiss border daily to work, that is an example of how people can be friendly without sharing a Prime Minister. It is not David Cameron who makes us friends.
Phil Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is not necessarily comparing like with like. Scotland and England, and the rest of the UK, have a shared history that goes back 300 years.
I read something recently on the blog “Open Democracy” by Gerry Hassan and James Mitchell, two pro-separatist academics based at the university of West Scotland and Edinburgh university. They state that the metropolitan establishment have pronounced on the currency union, and go on to say:
“London is where the problem lies. But our friends in the north of England have long understood this.”
Speaking as an MP for the north-east who has lived in the north-east all his life, I say to those commentators and the SNP that they should not patronise the north-east of England by pretending that they speak for my region—they do not—or offer friendship with one hand while building a wall between us with the other.
I agree that there should be deeper economic cross-border relations between Scotland and the north-east of England; I have no problem with that. The IPPR North study “Borderlands”, commissioned by the Association of North East Councils, points out that there should be closer cross-border relations, especially between local authorities on either side of the border. Who could argue against that, especially when it comes to issues such as transport? I understand that the SNP agrees, which I am pleased to hear, but surely that would be much easier to do across the existing border than across an international border between two independent states.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I accept entirely the point that he is making: cross-border economic relations of every kind will be affected and harmed if Scotland becomes independent, whether by different tax rates, border controls or fundamental changes to the transport systems, two of which would not meet.
Phil Wilson
The hon. Gentleman has raised the point that I was going to make next with some statistics. At present, more than 23 million vehicles, 15 million tonnes of freight and 7 million rail passengers a year cross the border between England and Scotland in both directions. If Scotland becomes an independent state, the current border will become an international border. Scotland will have to take control of its border and introduce the relevant regulations to manage it. The present UK is a true domestic single market: businesses in Scotland have easy access to customers throughout all parts of the UK, as does the north-east of England. Anyone who has the people and their benefit in mind will surely see that as a key reason why Scotland should not be independent, and why we should work together for the benefit of all the people who live in the UK.
An international border would create a barrier to all that. For example, as I have said, 40,000 people travel each way across the border every day to work. An independent Scotland would not have the membership of the EU or the common travel area that it now enjoys. It would have to renegotiate travel arrangements with the rest of Britain.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is also about access to European markets. Currently, steelworks in Scotland such as Dalzell and Clydebridge roll Scunthorpe steel. Every single bit of slab steel that goes to Dalzell and Clydebridge in Scotland is from Scunthorpe. Independence would undermine a crucial, constituent part of the steel industry not just in England but in Scotland. It is a UK steel industry.
Phil Wilson
I think there will be a lot of consensus on this side of the argument. We have a lot of common ground among all parts of the UK. Why we would want to disrupt and dismantle that, I do not know. It can only cause additional burdens to the Scottish and English people who currently take for granted the journey across the border. If Scotland managed to renegotiate entry into the EU, it would have to join the Schengen agreement, meaning that passports would have to be shown at border crossings such as Berwick.
Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. On that point, I am sure he shares my concern that because new entrants to the EU must join the euro, we will end up with two currencies.
Phil Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Little by little, hon. Members are dismantling the whole argument for independence.
Mr MacNeil
Croatia joined the EU in July 2013. When did Croatia join the euro?
Phil Wilson
My right hon. Friend says that Scotland would be obliged to join. The position of the Scottish National party is that once it believed Scotland should join the euro. Then it wanted Scotland to have its own currency, and now it wants to stay with the pound. Can SNP members make up their mind? It is not possible. They want to have their cake and eat it.
Thousands of north-easterners would have to take their passports to go to work in Scotland, and Scots would have to take their passports to travel from Scotland to England. I have relatives in Scotland who visit my family in south Durham every week. My brother is English and his partner is Scottish. They make that journey every week without let or hindrance, and now the SNP wants to put border controls there. Scotland will not be a member of the EU or of the common travel area, and cannot have it both ways.
Guy Opperman
It is fair that we keep making the point by giving particular examples. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the North East chamber of commerce has expressed specific concerns about the currency issue, and the Northern Farmers and Landowners Group, which represents the cross-border farming community, including many farmers who farm both sides of the border, has also expressed significant concern that if independence went ahead the ability of the farming community to function would be gravely impeded.
Phil Wilson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point yet again. Over time, employment regulations may not be an incentive for people to cross the border, a factor that in itself might disrupt economic development in both the north-east of England and Scotland.
I do not understand why the SNP wants to put up barriers between Scotland and the north-east of England. By putting up such barriers, Scotland will potentially lose out on—
Phil Wilson
I will just make this very important point, because I will now boast about the north-east of England, as it has a lot to offer.
The north-east is the only region in the country with a positive balance of trade in the export market, exporting £14 billion-worth of goods every year; its manufacturing industry is worth £7.5 billion; we have a strong and successful advanced engineering sector, leading the way in low-carbon technology and sustainable energy solutions; we have world-class research and engineering capabilities in wind, wave, tidal and solar power; we are home to successful knowledge-based economies, with 40,000 skilled individuals employed in the supply chain and more than 65,000 people working in the oil and gas sector; and more than 70% of the oil and gas platforms operating in the North sea are built in the north-east of England. On top of all that, a third of the north-east is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty or is part of a national park. Why does the SNP want to put an international border between itself and an area as fantastic as the north-east?
Phil Wilson
No. I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, I want to make progress and I am sure that he will make some kind of speech later on.
I believe in co-operation between Scotland and the north-east of England, but building barriers will generate costs. Internal studies have proven that. When Czechoslovakia split into two states in 1993, the currency union between the two lasted 33 days and trade between the two fell significantly. I do not want to see that happen in our case.
International evidence also shows that flows of trade, labour and capital are much larger between two regions of the same country than between two similar regions in different countries. The best example is the trade between US and Canada. According to studies, Canadian provinces trade around 20 times more with each other than with nearby US states of a similar size, and the international border between the US and Canada reduces trade by 44%. If anyone believes in a strong Scotland and wants to see a prosperous north-east, why would they want to put barriers between the two, which would not be welcome and are not needed? Such a move cannot be good for Scots, English people or Britain.
I do not understand what is wrong with being part of the third largest economy in Europe and the sixth largest economy in the world. Why does the SNP want to be independent of that kind of success story?
Mr Straw
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. First, the concerns and issues that he is raising for the north-east of England also apply to all colleagues of all parties in the north-west of England. Secondly, on his central point—that we are better together—does he think that a far better comparison than the one used by the SNP representative here in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), which compared Scotland with Liechtenstein—
Mr Straw
Or Austria. The better comparison is to look at what happened in Germany. Three centuries ago, Bavaria and Prussia were at war—Catholic versus Protestant. They finally came together and I do not think that anybody, either in Bavaria or Prussia, would argue that those regions have not been able to maintain their distinctive identities and institutions while hugely benefiting from the fact that they are part of a single union.
Phil Wilson
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We can have 300 years of history, as we have between Scotland and England, and still keep separate identities. We have an identity in the north-east of England, which in some ways is similar to the Scottish identity; we even call our children “bairns”. From my perspective, the identity is there and it is a great thing, so why do we have to create independence and an international border between the two countries? To say that we need to do that to secure our identity is not true.
Currently, 70% of Scotland’s trade is with the rest of the UK, including the north-east of England, and 70% of Scotland’s imports come from the rest of the UK. If the SNP wants independence, why does it want to keep the pound? If it wants to keep the pound, why not stay as part of Britain? It would save—
Phil Wilson
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a speech later. He has already intervened on me twice, and I am sure that he will let me intervene when he speaks.
Phil Wilson
However, I suppose that if it all goes wrong, the rest of the UK, including the population of the north-east of England, can pick up the tab.
Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes some good points, and I congratulate him on securing this debate.
There is far more that combines us and brings us together than ever divides us. However, one of the things that is quite concerning is the question of what Britain will pick up from Scotland if we become independent. Standard Life has just announced that it would look to go to its marketplace and its marketplace is England, and that would also be the case with the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is not scaremongering. In fact, what we are doing is creating a division when we do not need to create one.
Phil Wilson
Again, that is an excellent point from my hon. Friend and fellow Whip.
If someone really believes in the future of Scotland, why would they want to create so much uncertainty for the economy in the future by having this rose-tinted view of independence, when in fact independence is not in the best interests of the Scottish people, although I believe they should have the right to decide whether or not they stay part of the UK?
The issue of Scottish independence is very important to the north-east of England. At one time—
Ian Swales
Has the hon. Gentleman been surprised, as I have, by the lack of logic in wanting to stay in the European Union but wanting to leave the United Kingdom Union?
Phil Wilson
The whole SNP philosophy on independence is just full of contradictions. It wants to create a barrier between England and Scotland, but it also wants to join the EU, where there is free movement of labour and free trade in goods. Obviously there is a contradiction in that.
I think that I have already said it but I just want to repeat that the SNP wanted, at one time, to be a member of the euro; then, the pound was a millstone around Scotland’s neck. Now the SNP wants to keep the pound. How can it keep the pound without fiscal, monetary and political union? We are better together because we already have that union, and it offers stability.
It is okay having some rose-tinted image of Scottish independence, which is all thistles, sporrans and Bannockburn, but the practicalities for the Scottish people should make them think twice, if not three times. Labour is a national party, not a nationalist party, and any further settlement on devolution should bear that in mind: devolution of air passenger duty would affect the airports in the north-east of England; any kind of variation in corporation tax would have an effect as well; and any change in income tax could have a detrimental impact on other parts of the UK, including the north-east of England. It seems that there is another contradiction, whereby the SNP wants to offer cuts in corporation tax and in APD to business, while at the same time saying to the rest of the population that it will maintain good, decent public services. How will it raise the tax to do that?
I belong to the Labour party, a left-of-centre people’s party; that is how we see ourselves. As such, our belief in people does not stop at the borders, but if someone is a nationalist I believe that it does. Those pushing for independence want to have their cake and eat it. They want to keep the pound and the Queen, stay in the EU and NATO, and keep the BBC. They have all those things now, and it is called the United Kingdom. My advice to those seeking independence is that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, because we are, after all, better off together.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Six people seek to speak, and I hope to call the wind-ups no later than 10.40. I will not impose a time limit at this stage, but I ask Members to bear in mind that I hope to get everybody in.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this debate.
I speak as a mongrel Brit of immigrant ancestors, as the representative of a constituency that borders Scotland, and as someone who has repeatedly made the case that we are better together. I went to Scotland last year and did a series of events over about 10 days, debating this issue from Aberdeen all the way down to Argyll. I was struck by the fervour created by this point. The issue matters desperately to those of us who represent north-east constituencies, because it will have a significant impact on trade. Of course, trade and tourism will continue and, of course, Scotland will continue to exist as an independent country, but there is no doubt that the decision will have an impact on business and on job prospects in the border region.
When one analyses the case put forward by the Scottish National party, it is, on any interpretation, economically illiterate. When the hon. Member for Sedgefield made the point that the Scots wish to have their cake and eat it, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) wisely and intelligently said from a sedentary position, “That’s what cake’s for.” It is a policy totally devoid of any grasp of reality.
Looking at the currency issue, the SNP argues that it wishes to have the pound, but it does not want Mark Carney or the Bank of England having any controls, because when one takes independence, one forfeits huge amounts of control over the ability to tax, set interest rates, and the like. We are now in a position of sterlingisation, a policy best espoused by those legendary countries, Panama, Montenegro and Greece.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, furnish us with information about which countries have shared sterling in the past, and particularly about how many countries were sharing sterling in the 1970s.
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that no sensible economist would say that a policy of sterlingisation would support a country’s banking and fiscal system. The desire that we all have for greater North sea oil prosperity is based on a fundamental need to secure the markets, and to secure bank finance, for example. That would be grossly affected by a floating sterling position in Scotland.
As for borders, my constituents in Northumberland are deeply concerned about that matter. It is worth analysing briefly the position in relation to immigration controls. For my sins, I have read the Scottish Government’s paper, “Scotland’s Future”, and I assure hon. and right hon. Members that it is a long, hard read. Chapters 6 and 7 set out the Scottish Government’s preference for an independent Scotland joining the EU, but staying within the common travel area. Others commented, rightly, on the fact that originally Scotland wished to join the euro; then it decided that it wanted the pound, and now it is sterlingisation.
However, in respect of immigration policy—not that we are in Woolworths, having pick ’n’ mix in any way—the Scottish Government prefer to have an EU policy and support that part of the EU. That is, of course, contingent on one thing. It is rare for a Conservative MP to praise a man called Barroso, but I am grateful to Mr Barroso for his amazing contribution to this debate, because the European leaders have made it acutely clear that, regarding the immigration control situation, were Scotland to go independent, it would have to apply to join the EU. That is not going to happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar laughs and chunters, as always, from a sedentary position, but can he name an individual European politician—I will happily give way to him on this point—who has said that the border control situation will be acceptable if Scotland does not join the EU, and that it will be no problem at all?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman will, of course, be aware of the example of the Republic of Ireland, which is in the EU and the common travel area and not in Schengen.
Phil Wilson
People leaving southern Ireland and going to Belfast do not have to show their passports, but if they continue their journey to Liverpool by ferry, they do.
Guy Opperman
It is worth assessing the UK Government’s position, which is that if Scotland were to become an independent state, the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK would, by definition, become an international border between two separate states, with everything that that entails. The evidence locally in the north-east, whether from farming bodies or the North East chamber of commerce, is extensive: there is huge concern that this will have an impact on trade, businesses and jobs. I met a number of oil and gas producers, several of whom are building huge sites on the Tyne at the moment. Hon. Members know that the two biggest construction sites are for construction projects in the North sea. The producers are concerned that, if there were independence, those projects would be affected, and there would be greater difficulties.
It is, self-evidently, for the Scots to make this decision, but it is incumbent on all of us, not just—with great humility and respect—to analyse the weak arguments of the SNP, but to make the case to all the Scots whom we know, and to get up to Scotland and encourage all those in Scotland to analyse deeply whether they wish to do this, because, self-evidently, we are better together.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate.
As a Scot, I believe that separation from the rest of the UK would present business on both sides of the border with an unnecessary barrier. In Scotland, there would be a barrier to trading with our biggest market—the UK—and to our long-established trading with the north-east of England, and that makes no sense at all. No one wants a barrier to our trade and connections with north- east England, except those who promote independence for Scotland.
Mr McKenzie
I will not give way at the moment.
We are all aware that the open border between Scotland and the north-east brings significant economic, trade and employment opportunities. We are also aware that, should Scotland vote yes in September, the border will be closed, with the new Scottish state being outside EU membership. Scotland’s languishing in a long line for EU membership would mean its being outside the EU and having a closed border—absolutely guaranteed—bringing about significant trade difficulties. We would lose our shared opportunities, despite the fact that we all agree that we need as many opportunities as we can get these days.
Cross-border private and public sector trading can do without this obstacle being put in the way of ease of doing business. Clearly, Scotland has an important economic relationship with north-east England and the UK as a whole. The facts speak for themselves: Scottish business buys and sells more products and services from the UK than any other country in the world. This enables the Scottish people to be part of a larger and more successful economy, and to trade and share easily with our neighbours in north-east England. Some 70% of Scotland’s exported goods went to other parts of the UK, and 70% of imports came from the UK, clearly demonstrating that Scotland’s economic performance is stronger because it is part of a larger integrated UK economy. Exit the UK and our border becomes a barrier that will impede and restrict ease of trade.
Even where free trade agreements exist alongside controlled borders, neighbouring countries with similar economies are affected by the presence of that border. As we have heard, we know this to be true. Hon. Members need only look at the US and Canada: their trade is thought to be some 44% lower than it could be—a result of that controlled border between them.
Mr MacNeil
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully and wonder whether his argument is that Canada would be better giving up its independence and becoming part of the United States of America. That seems his logical position.
Mr McKenzie
The comparison I am making is between a closed border and an open border. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not only business that will be disadvantaged. Labour migration between Scotland and the rest of the UK is estimated to be as much as 75% higher within an integrated UK. More than ever, we need to share skills and knowledge, so that both sides of the border can prosper. Without doubt, Scotland’s leaving the UK would create an unnecessary barrier to trade with our close neighbours in north-east England. More unites us than divides us. Common goals and common bonds have been built over generations, which is why I believe in a vision of working across an open border and a continuation of the ease in our trading relationship that we have come to expect and enjoy.
We remember and value our close association with those with whom we share a border, but it is a border in name only. The border is not a symbol of division, but a link spanned by friendship and a common understanding of the challenges that we face together. Scotland’s relationship with north-east England should be a constructive collaboration, not a destructive competition, as would undoubtedly transpire after Scotland’s separation from the UK. The SNP is always arguing both ways, telling its supporters that everything will change while telling people on both sides of the border that nothing will change.
If all that independence is about is getting away from a Government for whom Scotland did not vote, I would ask Members to join me in seeking independence for Inverclyde. We have never voted for an SNP Government. We have a Labour MP, a Labour MSP and a Labour-controlled council, yet twice we have had to suffer under an SNP Government. The difference is that we understand and accept democracy. I have visited north-east England many times, and I have always believed that the future of Scotland and of north-east England lie together in one country—the UK.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am sure you will know what to do if the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) gets overexcited during the course of our proceedings.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this timely debate. People cannot get nearer to Scotland than my constituency. Indeed, Scotland surrounds us on two sides. My northern boundary and much of my western boundary are the national boundary. The passage of people across the border for work, shopping and family relationships, including my own, is constant. My constituency is very much involved, and there is a great deal of apprehension on what the consequences of a vote for independence might be. I will address those consequences in a moment, but I will first say a few things on the north-east’s relationship with Scotland that will apply whether the vote is yes or no.
The north-east is catching up, but it has significant economic problems. The north-east needs a much larger private sector and more jobs, but it has not had the resources that Scotland has had over the years. Successive Governments have failed to reform the Barnett formula, which gives between 10% and 15% more money per head for Scotland to spend on public services. The Barnett formula does so because it simply locks in the distribution from many years ago and applies it formulaically year after year when the needs of the north-east should have been recognised as they originally were. That is unfinished business for many of us who represent constituencies in the north-east of England.
We continue to fight for change on that front, but there are many signs of improvement in the north-east. We have seen the gross value added per head improve in the past couple of years, and we have seen growth in private sector jobs. We have seen marvellous investments by, for example, Nissan and the kinds of firms to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) referred. Firms are investing on Tyneside in renewable and offshore technology. That is all encouraging, but it has to be recognised that, if we do not continue to press the case for the north-east of England, Governments of all parties appear ready to forget about the area. As north-east MPs, we must therefore continue to press our case very strongly.
There are two aspects of the relationship between the north-east and Scotland that I particularly need to emphasise today. Our economy significantly depends on the connectivity between the north-east and Scotland. One of the most obvious aspects is that it is absurd that we still do not have a dual carriageway connecting the north-east of England with Scotland. Parts of the road have been dualled over the years, but the job is still not completed. The previous Government dropped two very good schemes that would have dualled the road significantly. There is increasing trade between Scotland and England that requires good road communications, which is an important priority. I welcome that the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have both committed to completing the ongoing study and intend to proceed with the matter. We need progress.
Mr MacNeil
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the roads being a serious matter. Can he think of a couple of independent EU countries in which the main arteries joining at the border—on the frontier—are so bad?
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I was in Croatia on holiday, and the A1 in Croatia is a magnificent dual carriageway, but it suddenly stops at the border with Montenegro. There is a small break in the otherwise magnificent A1. If Croatia can do it, why on earth have we still not completed the dualling of the major link between England and Scotland on the east coast?
Rail connectivity is also important, and I am beginning to be concerned that the High Speed 2 proposals have led Railtrack to propose ideas for the future of the east coast main line that would provide unsatisfactory services between the north-east of England and Scotland. Those services have greatly improved in recent years. We now have very fast train services from Edinburgh and Newcastle to London. We also have a much improved service from Alnmouth in my constituency, which is an important part of our connectivity. If Railtrack wants to ensure that MPs in the north-east of England, and indeed eastern Scotland, support HS2, it must not pursue daft ideas that would undermine the service. That also means that we have to improve the east coast main line’s capacity, particularly to handle freight. There are possible investments, such as on the Leamside line, that could greatly improve the capacity of the east coast main line and cater for potentially growing freight traffic between the north-east ports and for links between the north-east ports and Scotland.
There are issues that would be of very serious concern to my constituents if there were to be a yes vote in the referendum. The debate so far has been about an idea, and only now are we beginning to consider the realities and facts. Of course Scotland could be independent, but there is a price to be paid by both countries if that were to happen. That price includes serious problems at the border. If the United Kingdom, minus Scotland, did not have control and did not know what Scotland’s immigration policy will be, it could not commit itself to an open border with Scotland. If the rest of the United Kingdom did not have any control of security in Scotland, it could not have a completely open border. Whether the rest of the United Kingdom has a continuous border control or just introduces a border control when it considers there to be a particular danger, there will from time to time be border controls to address the fact that the United Kingdom will have no control over who is admitted to Scotland. I am talking about, for example, a terrorist returning from Syria whom we would not want simply to move freely in Scotland.
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
The question of immigration and border controls is as much an economic issue as anything else, because the growth in Scotland’s working population is projected to be significantly less than the rest of the UK. That is why we have had nothing from the SNP on immigration. An independent Scotland might have a greater dependency on migrant workers.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In my limited time, I will address another issue that affects border controls—fiscal policy in Scotland. An independent country might wish to have different VAT rates from those that apply in England. That raises the other issue of Scotland’s relationship with the EU, which has already been covered so I will not say any more. If different taxation rates applied, there would be issues at the border and a need to control goods coming across the border. That would further impair trade and cause further difficulties for people whose everyday life means constantly crossing the border. Those things are not impossible to address—they are dealt with in many countries—but they add to the difficulties of areas that have enough economic problems as it is and certainly do not need such artificial pressures.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman has got to the crux of the matter. Those who support independence for Scotland tell us that they want to see open borders and no change whatsoever from the current arrangements. If Scotland was to become independent, I am sure that most of us, so far as we would have a role in the matter, would want to see as open a border as possible. The fact is, however, that we can only guarantee open borders and the present arrangements by being part of the same state, and that could change with independence. People can debate how real that is and how far they would change, but we can only guarantee the open border by maintaining the same state arrangements.
Sir Alan Beith
The hon. Gentleman puts the argument very well indeed. The Union is a guarantee of free passage across the border, unimpeded by either immigration or customs controls, and that is well worth having. We are much better together because of that.
There is another kind of problem—we get it even under the existing system, although it would be significantly worse if Scotland became independent—which is the administrative difficulties people face if they want to access public services across the border. If I ring up a plumber, he does not say, “I am sorry, but I cannot help you because I am on the wrong side of the border.” When public services are involved, however, those difficulties start to arise. We have managed to minimise them in health, for example, where many people on the Scottish side of the border go to GPs in England and vice versa. Many people from my constituency use the Borders general hospital. There are, however, always problems just around the corner, and I spend a lot of time fighting to ensure that new barriers are not erected. They would be much more likely to be erected in the event of independence, and that is a real danger.
Mr David Hamilton
Is it not also the case that we have specialised treatments in Scotland and the UK? It is not uncommon for someone from my area of Edinburgh and Midlothian to be sent down to London or the midlands for a specialised treatment. It is also not uncommon for someone in England to come to Scotland for specialised treatment. That would have to go by the wayside with independence.
Sir Alan Beith
Indeed. Cross-border activity is common; it is day to day in my area, but it also happens elsewhere with specialised treatment. That activity is not impossible with independence—we should not overstate the case—but it would become more difficult and the likelihood of administrative barriers being erected is that much greater. There are a whole series of reasons why anyone living near the border, unless they see their future entirely as a town of currency exchange kiosks and smugglers, would think that we are much better together. That leads many of my constituents to say, “Why can we not vote on Scottish independence?” I have a lot of sympathy with that, but I hold as a matter of principle that, having joined the Union, Scotland is entitled to leave if that is the will of the Scottish people. They would be ill-advised to do so, and I do not think they will vote to do that, but it is their entitlement.
Were the Scottish people to vote for independence, negotiations would begin on the terms of that independence, how much of Britain’s national debt they would take with them, what we do about the banks headquartered in Scotland and all the other issues. It is then that my constituents and those of other English, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs will want to be heard. No Government, however composed, will get a deal for Scottish independence through this Parliament that is unfair to the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Members of Parliament representing the rest of the United Kingdom will want and will have a say on behalf of their constituents, were Scotland to vote to seek independence.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure indeed, Mr Weir, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson)—a fine MP—on securing the debate. Usually, the Scottish National party in the House of Commons finds itself the six against the 600. There are slightly better odds this morning, with one against 18, and that is much to the good.
It is absolutely fantastic that some of these arguments are being aired, because when the scares and fears are aired, they are quickly punctured. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman, together with the SNP Government and Standard Life, supports currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is to be welcomed and is progress. If only some other Members—particularly those in the Treasury—had his enlightened view, we would get on much better. I encourage him to ask the Prime Minister to continue with pre-negotiations. He ruled them out, but of course he has broken his word on that already.
Barriers were mentioned and the truth is that we will not be erecting any barriers. I hope that the Prime Minister will not be erecting any barriers, and in the absence of either side erecting any barriers, there will be no barriers and we can continue to flow and interact with each other freely. The thing that will change is that the Government will move from Westminster to Holyrood, with the most democratic forum representing the Scottish people. I do not know what people can have against that, but I am shocked that people cannot be international. It is great to be an internationalist and fantastic to respect the independence of other nations and to look to engage and co-operate in an international manner. With that, I encourage people who feel that they cannot interact with people outwith their borders to think bigger, to hope for better and to look for a greater future. I am sure that if they search the depths of their hearts, they will find a way to look and to co-operate with their neighbours.
If people are struggling, there are international examples of that co-operation. Switzerland has 250,000 people crossing its borders every day. It is not in the EU, but those people come from EU countries. The population of Liechtenstein doubles during the working day as people come in to work in its advantageous employment environment. That would not happen if Liechtenstein was not independent. The people living around Liechtenstein would not have the possibility of finding employment in that area and would have to travel further afield. I am sure that the benefits that accrue to many places on the borders around Europe will also accrue to the north of England. If the hon. Gentleman was to look deeply at the issue, I am sure he would find many advantages, but it is to his political advantage—it will be off a Whip’s script that he has probably written himself—to up the fears and the scares and make it sound difficult.
Mr MacNeil
I will give way in a minute. All that will happen is that we will stop sharing a Prime Minister. It is not the need to have David Cameron as a Prime Minister that keeps the pair of us co-operating. Without David Cameron, I will still like the hon. Member for Sedgefield as much as I do.
Phil Wilson
Can the hon. Gentleman just answer this simple question? When it loses the referendum, what will be the point of the SNP?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman asks a fantastic question, which gives me the opportunity to outline the point of the SNP, which is to put the Scottish people first, rather than power struggles in London, which, unfortunately, is the point of the London parties. It is all about who is in government in London, and that is not for the good of the people of Sighthill, Springburn, Castlemilk, Fort William, Inverness, Sutherland, Lochaber, Skye or Lewis. That is an awful tragedy. It should also be in our interest in Scotland to ensure that the good people of the north-east of England are benefiting as much as those in the regions of Scotland. I look forward to the day I witness people from the north-east of England finding chances of employment in Scotland, rather than having to go far afield to the south-east of England.
Guy Opperman
May I return the hon. Gentleman to the key issue of currency? Will he state for the House’s benefit what his proposal is on currency? Under the present position on a sterlingisation approach, he would surely be borrowing in a currency over which he had no control and in a monetary environment that is unsustainable in the long run for investors, who are so key to jobs and business prosperity.
Mr MacNeil
The reality, as he well knows, is that after the referendum victory on 19 September, George Osborne will take a different approach from his arrogant, dismissive bullying of the Scottish people. He will find some humble pie and dine on it very heartily. George Osborne understands the importance of his balance of payments and does not want to weaken sterling. Or is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would like to see sterling weaken? He knows that that is what will happen if Scotland is not in the sterling area. Does he disagree with that?
Sir Alan Beith
Has the hon. Gentleman not observed the situation with the euro, where Germany is pointing out that those countries whose fiscal policies cannot support use of the euro cannot have independent fiscal policy if they want to remain in the euro? How can Scotland remain independent in its fiscal policy if it uses a common currency with England?
Mr MacNeil
If I did not know the right hon. Gentleman better, I would imagine that he was threatening the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, because they are in that situation. Is he saying that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man will have to give up their independence? I think not. I think that he is quite a reasonable individual, and I do not think that he will go down that route. The argument about the euro is fallacious, because there are vastly different levels of productivity within the eurozone. The strains within the euro are not really between all the countries that use the euro—they are not between Germany, the Netherlands and France—but between Germany and the far more divergent economies of southern Europe, such as Greece.
I want to address the point that has been made about Canada and the United States of America. The comparison is erroneous because the populations of Canada and the United States are more contiguous, particularly in Canada, running east-west rather than north-south, and that is where the problems are. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) was not encouraging Canada, which became independent of the United Kingdom, to become part of the United States of America. We must realise that 100 years ago, the world had 50 independent states. It now has 200 independent states—Europe alone has 50 independent states—and it is better for it. Intergovernmental organisations and others come together to deal with things, and the approach is far more mature than the one that existed in the days of empire. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take further his support for the independence of Canada, of which I am a fervent supporter, and to realise that just as Canada is better off being independent of its 10-times-larger neighbour to the south, the same is true for Scotland. I do not see any animosity between Canada and the United States of America; I see friendship and people trying to get on with each other.
If there has been a discordant note in the debate, it was introduced by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who described London as a “giant suction machine”. I am glad to say that that was repudiated by no less a figure than the SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, who said at University college London that the Secretary of State’s comment was a bit harsh. That happened to be on the day that the Chancellor went to Scotland to bully, threaten and harry the people of Scotland, with predictable reactions. I remember the headline from the London Evening Standard: “Chancellor bullies the Scots while Nicola Sturgeon charms London”. The SNP’s deputy leader spoke in a constructive tone not of fears and scares, but of optimism about the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
We did not see that last week.
Mr MacNeil
I hear Members, including no less a figure than the Minister, cackling and heckling. The same fears and nonsense about the idea that we would be diminished were no doubt present when Ireland and some of the Dominions were moving towards independence, but I argue that they were wrong. There is more trade between the UK and Ireland now than there ever was when Ireland was part of the UK. Things are better, and the aggregate GDP of the British Isles is higher because of an independent Ireland and an independent Isle of Man. It will be higher still when we have an independent Scotland, because of the giant suction machine that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills alluded to. There is an issue, but the best way to solve it is to create a successful second centre of gravity in the island of Britain. The island of Ireland probably benefits from having two Governments, although it has not been helped by the psychopathic elements who have been involved over the past 100 years.
Guy Opperman
It is hard to follow the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but we are all trying. Can he enlighten us when it comes to the Barnett formula? If Scotland were to go independent, presumably that formula would not continue to operate and the hon. Gentleman would not seek for it to do so, given that Scotland would be an independent state. What is the SNP’s position if it loses the referendum? Will he decide that Scotland does not need the Barnett formula?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is quite correct to say that if Scotland were independent, it would not seek to operate a Barnett formula any more than Norway does. In Norway, of course, average wages are twice those in the UK, on a population of a similar size to that of Scotland with oil.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if the referendum were lost. First, I do not think that the referendum will be lost, and secondly, the SNP will do what we always do, which is to put the interests of Scotland first. He should be aware that Scotland is 8.4% of the UK’s population and raises 9.9% of the UK’s taxes, and that over the past five years, taking tax and spend together, Scotland was £12.6 billion relatively better off.
If the hon. Gentleman is exercised by the Barnett formula, and he clearly is, the best thing that he can do is to join his brothers in Scotland and support independence, and then he can stop worrying about it. He will no longer be troubled by the green-eyed monster when it comes to someone getting a fraction more or a fraction less. Actually, that concern should not exist because, as I have pointed out, Scotland contributes 9.9% of the UK’s taxation although it accounts for only 8.4% of its population. In each of the past 32 years, Scotland has contributed more tax per person than the UK average.
Mr Russell Brown
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the population of Scotland in comparison with the rest of the UK, and he mentioned taxation. One of the important taxes for the man and woman on the street in Scotland will be income tax, and that income tax level is only 7.2% of the UK collection rate. He has also mentioned Norway. Would he like to share with us the income tax levels for people in Norway, and whether those living in an independent Scotland could actually stomach such rates of tax?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman tempts me down an inviting road. As I have mentioned, average wages in Norway are twice what they are in the UK after tax. After adjusting for purchasing power, the average Norwegian has 43% more money, or £158 extra, each week in their pocket than the average person in the UK. In addition, inequality in Norway is lower than it is in the UK. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in making his constituents wealthier, he should follow the model that the SNP proposes, under which we would set up an oil fund and ensure that the gains of productivity were distributed far more equally in our society than they are at the moment in the UK. Inequality in the UK is the fourth highest in the OECD, and that is not something that he should be defending. He should join me in making Scotland a more egalitarian and wealthier place. Norway proves that that can happen with independence and oil.
Mr MacNeil
I would love to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but you are inviting me to wind up, Mr Weir. I thought that I had been doing so quite successfully, but I shall bring my remarks to a close. I would just like to mention the pleasure that I alluded to earlier of reading that Standard Life agreed with the Scottish Government on the currency. It should be borne in mind that Standard Life has at various points in the past 20 years threatened to walk out of Scotland if this, that or the other happened. Of course, it has not and it will not.
Mr MacNeil
I am afraid that I cannot. The child care offer given by the SNP Government would be fantastic, and I am absolutely clear that nobody in Standard Life would want to leave, particularly when its employees were getting such a fantastic offer.
Mr MacNeil
It is not just Standard Life. British Airways and Ryanair are seeing opportunities coming through, which may well benefit those in the north of England. They may prefer to take cheaper flights abroad from Scotland rather than making the long and arduous journey down to the south-east of England through snarled-up traffic. British Airways demonstrates the nub of the issue.
Mr MacNeil
It is not necessary to have David Cameron as Prime Minister to be British.
Mr MacNeil
Language, please. The hon. Gentleman lets himself down.
My final point is that when we put all the scares and fears aside, we see that independence offers opportunities not only for Scotland but for the north of England, and that it will increase the aggregate GDP of the British Isles. Nobody would roll back the independence of any other countries that have become independent, and I wager that when Scotland becomes independent, nobody will roll that back either. The voices that try to scare us about independence are the same ones that endlessly tried to scare us about devolution. They repeat the same fears as before when it comes to independence. None of them wants to reverse the independence of any European country, however, and when Scotland has become independent, they will support it wholeheartedly. Those in the north of England and the Borders will tell us of their great relations with Scotland, and they will tell us that an independent Scotland is the best thing since sliced bread.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. The two speakers left are down to 11 minutes. I will not be timing them, but I ask them to bear that in mind.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and it is a privilege to follow the party political broadcast for the Scottish National party—we look forward to the idea of “Scotland, the new Liechtenstein” being rolled out in the referendum debate. I feared that I would not get to speak, so I will be brief, to allow other Members to contribute.
In principle, I support allowing Scotland a referendum, so that the people can decide. How could I not, with my track record of advocating referendums? I am concerned, however, about the way in which the referendum has come about, and about its legitimacy, given who will be voting. I have never quite been resigned to the anomaly that allows 400,000 English people living in Scotland to vote, but 500,000 Scottish people living in England not to vote. It is strange that many of the Scottish people whom I represent will have no say, but my mother who lives in Hamilton will get a vote—she will, I am sure, vote to remain part of the United Kingdom.
We are primarily present, however, to discuss not the referendum, its format or how it came about, but what it might mean. There are two possible options. Scotland could, of course, vote to leave the United Kingdom. That is unlikely, because the Scottish people are sensible enough to want to remain part of the United Kingdom, but the possibility remains. They might be persuaded by the slogans and rhetoric of those who legitimately make the argument for independence. As we have discussed this morning, though, there would then be all sorts of problems and unanswered questions. How would they deal with taking a share of the national debt? How much would that share be, and what would the deal look like? What would the currency be, if it cannot be sterling? What would Scotland’s relationship with the European Union look like?
Mr MacNeil
I am surprised at some of the hon. Gentleman’s words. Would he be in favour of Scotland using sterling?
James Wharton
No, I would not, personally. It would be a suboptimal position, were Scotland to go independent, and I think that Scotland would not find it to be in its long-term interests.
Furthermore, how would Scotland deal with an exodus of companies that have made it clear that they would not be comfortable remaining based in Scotland were it to cast itself adrift from the United Kingdom? All those questions have been debated at some length, however, and I want to look at what is more likely to happen. It is more likely that Scotland will sensibly vote to remain part of the UK. That is why this debate is important, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on it. What happens in that case could be important for the region that he and I represent; indeed, it could have an impact on the north-east and the north-west, and on the north of England as a whole. Without doubt, debate would quickly move on to further devolution, devo-max and what Scotland will look like as part of the United Kingdom, post the independence referendum. What would the new settlement be? I have no doubt that there would be a push for further powers to be devolved and further control to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, and I fear what that would mean for the north-east.
We already have a competitive disadvantage in the north-east as a result of some of the powers that Scotland has devolved to it today. As regards competition with the north-east, Scottish Enterprise is able to give an extra push towards investing in Scotland, and to appeal to companies on where they bring their business, employment and investment. It is not necessarily the case that Teesside and Tyneside would prosper at the expense of places such as Aberdeen, but the reality is that companies choose where they will be located. There should be a level playing field, with fair conditions on both sides of the border, when companies make that choice.
James Wharton
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again, because we are short of time.
After Scotland votes to remain part of the United Kingdom, as I am sure it will, my concern is that the north of England will face a challenge. While we do everything we can to support the country, the economy and its growth as a whole, we must ensure that we do not allow an unfair competitive advantage that would damage the economies of the people and constituencies that we represent.
Tom Blenkinsop
The hon. Gentleman and I know that the growth of Teesport in our region is massively dependent on exports to the Scottish market. For example, last January, Bunn Fertiliser announced that it would use Teesport to export not only to its English sites, but to the Scottish market. Can he give any other examples in our area of the Scottish market being so crucial to Teesside?
James Wharton
The examples are legion. The entire chemical processing industry and our engineering expertise on Teesside are in competition for jobs and investment with similar industry in many parts of Scotland. That goes not only for Teesside, but for Tyneside, Wearside, County Durham and the north of England as a whole. It is important for us to work together, and to improve the economies of all such areas where we can. We must not allow unfair competition that would unjustifiably and unfairly penalise the people we represent in the north of England.
Where would that take us? If Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, the greater debate would be the one that took place in the north of England. The push would be for further regionalisation. We had a vote some years ago on whether we wanted a regional assembly, and the proposal was rejected in an outstandingly clear result. My concern is that that movement and impetus would arise again, out of a feeling of unfairness about Scotland being able to compete in a way that disadvantaged the north of England. The push towards regionalisation in England would start again—it would start in the north—and it is not something that I want to see.
Scotland voting no, if handled in the wrong way, could lead to further regionalisation, damage and break-up in the United Kingdom. I have no objection to powers being given to regions, but I do not want wholesale transfers away from our existing united model, which I support. We resoundingly rejected a regional assembly, but this could open the door to that debate starting again. The people of the north-east do not want a regional assembly, and the people of England do not want an English Parliament—that is not a route that the United Kingdom should go down—but I fear that a no vote, if handled in an improper way, might allow the creation of unfair competition and disadvantage for areas such as the north-east and the north-west, and for constituencies similar to mine, leading us down a path that would do irreparable damage in the long term to the United Kingdom.
I welcome the debate, and we will hear much more on the subject in future. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield on raising such an important issue. I hope that, whoever is in government and whatever the situation at the time, people in London and in Westminster will appreciate the significance of further devolution to Scotland if it unfairly disadvantages the north-east.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate. The impact of Scottish separation on the north-east has received little attention. I am pleased that we are able to discuss the consequences of separation for the north-east, as well as for Scotland.
My view, for the record, is that we all benefit from Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. My constituency is a bit further from the border than that of other Members present, but in common with many people throughout England who have family ties with Scotland and feel a real sense of connection, I am proud of the longstanding relationship that we enjoy with our Scottish neighbours. It is right that any decision on whether Scotland should leave the United Kingdom is a matter for Scotland alone, but the United Kingdom has benefited from Scotland being part of it, just as Scotland has seen many benefits from being part of the United Kingdom.
The challenges that we face in the north-east are all too familiar to the Scots, and are similar to their concerns in daily life. Our shared trading links are a massive advantage on both sides of the border. Businesses and other organisations, such as the North East chamber of commerce, have rightly expressed concerns about the undoubted negative impact on jobs, growth and trade of a vote for separation.
There are many unanswered questions about the practical implications of separation. Unfortunately, this morning we have had no answers from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), speaking on behalf of the Scottish National party, whether about border controls, currency or membership of the European Union. It is incumbent on those who propose independence as an ideal to offer answers to genuine questions on such important issues.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady talked about sharing an affinity with Scotland. I have an affinity with Ireland, but I do not want us to share a Prime Minister, necessarily. Are there voices in north-east England expressing concern about jobs flooding into Scotland, as they might put it?
Bridget Phillipson
My concern is predominantly with the shared trading links between England and Scotland. We benefit from having an open border, without any hindrances. In the event of separation, that would simply not be the case.
Tom Blenkinsop
In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), yes. Steelworkers in the north-east were concerned when the SNP Government awarded the contract for the firth of Forth crossing to China. If it were not for steelworkers in England—in Scunthorpe and Darlington—bringing that up with the Scottish Government, the SNP would not have U-turned and offered the contract to the Dalzell site, so that there was fabrication in Darlington as well.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He takes a keen interest in such issues. Teesside is an important part of the UK steel industry, and he has steadily made that point about the impact if Scotland were to become independent.
I believe that more unites us than divides us. Our shared links and shared history matter. We simply cannot afford the uncertainty and the risk to jobs and trade that Scottish independence would bring. I do not want to see Scotland break away, but that decision is for the Scottish people—I respect that. I hope, though, that when voters go to the polls in Scotland, they will see the benefits of remaining part of this successful and enduring Union. I hope that it will endure for many centuries to come.
Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing this important debate and on his passionate contribution, in which he argued for the strengths of the Union of the United Kingdom. We have heard a lot this morning—about the impacts of independence on the steel industry in Scotland and the north-east; border controls and barriers; connectivity between the north-east and Scotland; EU membership; euro membership and currency in general; farming; North sea oil exploration and engineering; and a history lesson about Bavaria and Prussia from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).
I have seen things from both sides of the border. My father was a Scots miner, who married my mother, an Englishwoman, in Dunfermline abbey. They lived in Dunfermline, and then moved back to the north of England—that is where my mother was from. I was born in Acomb, in Northumberland, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman). I lived in Northumberland and then Cumberland, as it was then, until I was 14, before moving to Clackmannanshire in Scotland, where I have lived since, and I now have the privilege of representing it as part of my constituency. In the 1970s and 1980s, I worked for 10 years for the UK’s biggest house builder, Barratt, a north-east company that has in the past seen excellent growth and rewards from its Scottish business ventures. That kind of relationship is under pressure from independence.
Gordon Banks
I will say this once and only once to the hon. Gentleman: I will give way once, and I hope his intervention is much better than his contribution.
Mr MacNeil
That is a disappointing tone to take. All I can say is that I am severely surprised. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the different countries of his ancestry. Had his parents or grandparents been from countries outside the UK, would he have had a difficulty about that? Had he an ancestor from Denmark or Ireland, would he be internationalist on this issue, or does the fact that his ancestors are from the UK give him a particular difficulty?
Gordon Banks
It was not any better than the speech, at all. The hon. Gentleman really needs to be saved from himself in this place. My experience is of understanding the relationship between north-east England and Scotland, first hand. Those bonds demonstrate, I feel, the underlying strength of the Union, a sentiment that I know is shared by most Members present, with one obvious exception. Such links highlight that the debate surrounding independence does not affect Scotland in isolation but has significant implications for the rest of the UK. Nowhere is that felt more keenly than in north-east England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke with conviction about the common identity shared by Scotland and the north-east, and I am in full agreement with those sentiments. There can be no doubt about the bond in our industrial centres, such as Glasgow and Newcastle, or Sunderland and Dundee, based on our shared history, family and political perspective.
I, too, remember the 1980s, when Scotland and the north-east stood together against the poll tax and pit closures. People recognised then, as we do now, that any political change that we hope for can be reached only through the unity of shared identity and interests. That common bond would simply not be achievable if Scotland and the north-east were in separate countries.
The bonds of the 1980s can be felt just as strongly today, as can be seen by the fact that close to 150,000 people who were born in Scotland live in north-east or north-west England, and we have heard today about the many who travel across the border to work every day. Most of those people have made it abundantly clear that they do not want the break-up of the UK, as can be seen in a recent independent poll, which showed that 62% of Britons want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. People want that not only because of the bonds that we share, but because of an underlying recognition that independence for Scotland could leave them worse off.
That brings me to an important point, echoed throughout today’s debate: independence has the potential to create uncertainty for our nearest neighbours, as well as for Scotland. John Tomaney, formerly of Newcastle university, has indicated that independence could have significant economic consequences for the north-east; in particular, he has highlighted the undesirable situation of Scotland competing directly with the north-east for investment. North-east England would be in the unfortunate position of being caught between a prosperous south and an independent Scotland fixated on implementing Irish levels of corporation tax. The end result would be a dangerous race to the bottom when it comes to wages and conditions, a scenario that would have serious implications for not only job security but the growth and development of the economies of both Scotland and the north-east.
That concern is not restricted to today’s debate; it has been voiced over a number of years. In evidence to the Calman commission on Scottish devolution in 2009, the North East chamber of commerce expressed its concerns about what it called
“the creation of a Scottish rate of Corporation Tax”,
identifying
“the potential for wasteful competition”.
That view was recently echoed by the chamber’s head of policy, Ross Smith, who has stated that the north-east
“will feel the impact of any competition from north of the border more keenly than others”
and that
“the future of Scotland is a big issue for many businesses”
in the region.
Those concerns are only reinforced by the fact that the nationalists still have no credible plans on what currency would be used in an independent Scotland—that issue has been explored today, and we are still waiting for an answer. The situation leads only to uncertainty for the thousands of companies in the north-east and north-west that trade directly with Scottish businesses. The separatists are putting economic output and jobs in north-east England in jeopardy.
With just over six months to go until the referendum, the SNP has simply not provided any substantial answers to those important questions and many others raised today. As a result, it is damaging Scotland’s prospects with its crossed fingers, and its strapline from Alex Salmond of “Trust me: it’ll be all right on the night.” It also runs the risk of damaging the north of England, part of the country that would be an independent Scotland’s biggest supplier and marketplace. That is why it is insincere of the SNP to assert that backing an independent Scotland would be in the best interests of the economy of north-east England, while not being straight about the impact on the north-east of its proposed cut to corporation tax.
We have a bigger idea than independence. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, Labour is a national party, not a nationalist one. By their very nature, nationalists are separatists, whereas my party has its roots firmly in the whole of the UK, as has been shown today. I would encourage people to pay attention to the Institute for Public Policy Research’s “Borderland” report, which argues that the key to success for north-east England lies in more joint working with Scotland—a point we heard in contributions from hon. Members today. Working within the shared institutions of the UK is the obvious means of delivering and achieving that, rather than trying to forge a relationship with a newly formed foreign country.
This debate will go on, so perhaps we should have another debate on the same topic. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) bemoaned the 1:18 ratio among Members here today. Perhaps he can put in for a debate; then he could make a longer contribution, although that might be a bit of a challenge. However, today’s debate has made it clear that although the outcome of the referendum is rightly a matter only for people living in Scotland, the debate must be open to all. Open debate will be vital in the coming months if we are to provide any clarity in the uncertainty that the independence referendum poses for Scotland and the north-east. Independence for Scotland will do nothing to build jobs, improve social justice or raise the aspirations of people in north-east England.
As I said, I was born in north-east England, in the UK. I have lived in north-east England and in central Scotland, in the UK. I have worked in central Scotland and in this place, in the UK. I intend to make sure that, after 18 September, living in central Scotland and working in this place, I am still living and working in the UK. That is why I welcome today’s debate, and I hope there will be further opportunities to discuss these issues in the weeks and months ahead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir; I commend the fair way in which you have performed your duties. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) on securing the debate, and I welcome the contributions from Members from both sides of the border and of all political persuasions. Some Members are new to the debate on Scotland that we are regularly subjected to—or take part in, depending on one’s perspective.
Today is an important day in the referendum debate, because I hear from the BBC that Mr Alex Salmond is coming to England to reach out over the heads of the “Westminster elite”—I do not know whether that is us—to the people of England. I understand that he will tell them that they have no right to have a say in whether England enters into a currency union with Scotland, and that if Scotland becomes an independent country in the EU, English students will still have to pay tuition fees, contrary to EU law. That sounds like a very friendly message, which will be much welcomed.
Phil Wilson
I have seen the coverage of Alex Salmond’s speech, too. It is being described as an emotional appeal. It always seems to be emotional, but it never gets down to the nuts and bolts of the economics and the impact on people’s lives.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman makes an astute point. We all listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), but it did not contain many facts about what independence will mean for an independent Scotland, or what currency it will have. Mr Salmond needs to be clear that the message on the currency union is not a bluff. He needs to tell us what his alternative plan is. Sterlingisation would leave Scotland with no central bank, no lender of last resort and no control over its interest rates. The Scottish Government’s fiscal commission said that sterlingisation
“is not likely to be a long-term solution”.
Mr Salmond looks like a man without a plan. Perhaps the people of England will find out what the people of Scotland have not found out: his plan B for currency.
As a number of Members have pointed out, being part of a strong United Kingdom benefits us all, on whichever side of the border we live. We all benefit from the stability and certainly that comes from being part of the large and diverse UK single market of 63 million people, rather than the market of the 5 million people of Scotland. The UK really is greater than the sum of its parts; we all put something in and we all get something out.
As part of the UK, Scotland has a broad tax base that allows us to share risks across the UK, and enables us to deal with economic shocks such as the 2008 financial crisis, and to support our ageing population. We have influence on the world stage as a member of the UN Security Council, the EU, NATO, the G8, the G20 and the Commonwealth. At home, institutions such as the NHS and the BBC benefit us all. Scotland benefits from having a strong Scottish Parliament that can make decisions about the things that affect our everyday lives, such as our schools and hospitals. We can pool our resources in the good times and share risks in the bad times with our families and friends in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr MacNeil
The Minister says that we have a strong Scottish Parliament, but will he tell us why he left it to come to this place?
David Mundell
I left the Scottish Parliament because I was elected to Westminster. I am a supporter of the Scottish Parliament. I want to remind our friends who are not usually part of this debate that the Scottish National party did not support the devolution proposal in 1997, or the Calman commission’s proposal to give the Scottish Parliament additional powers in 2012.
Mr Russell Brown
The Minister is painting a picture of where there have been significant improvements. There has been a devolution of power, yet under the SNP Government, we in Scotland are experiencing centralisation on a scale that has never been seen before.
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman is right. Although he and I did not vote for the SNP Government in Edinburgh—nor did most people in Dumfries and Galloway—we are not saying that we should tear up the devolution settlement simply because we do not like the Government in Edinburgh. Rather, we are campaigning against the Government and saying that they should be changed. We are not tearing up our country simply because we do not believe in individual policies.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said that the only change that would come from independence is a change of Prime Minister—I think I heard him correctly, but I will check his words carefully, because I intend to have them printed out and distributed as widely as possible. He gave us the best case against independence that I have heard for some considerable time.
As a number of Members have said, like Scotland, the north-east benefits from the UK’s size and scale, and the ability to share risks and resources. Within the UK’s single market, we all benefit from close trading links, which continue to grow. The hon. Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), and for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) made those points strongly. Scotland sold goods and services worth more than £45.5 billion to other parts of the UK in 2011; that is double what we sell to the rest of the world, and four times as much as we sell to the EU. About 30,000 people travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK to work each day.
The strong ties between Scotland and the north-east are clearly illustrated by the work of the “Borderlands” initiative. As a Member of Parliament for Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish borders, I am keen to encourage that close cross-border work. We must bring more closely together the strategic interests on both sides of the border.
Sir Alan Beith
Can I count on the Minister’s backing in ensuring that the policy put forward by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary to prepare for the dualling of the A1 goes ahead?
David Mundell
The right hon. Gentleman is a powerful advocate of the dualling of the A1 to the border. It was not clear from his contribution that the A1 in Scotland is not dualled to the border; he might have wished to give that impression. However, he makes a strong argument for his proposition. He also made a strong point about cross-border services. Many of my constituents gratefully receive hospital treatment in Newcastle, and they do not want additional bureaucracy to block that. Although the NHS works on a devolved arrangement in Scotland, it is a shared institution and people do not want it to be separated.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield powerfully made the point about the border effect, which can be seen in the case of not only Canada and the US, but Austria and Germany. Creating a border will have an impact on trade. Hon. Members might be aware that our SNP friends have a pick ’n’ mix approach to comparisons with Scotland. Sometimes it is Norway, sometimes Finland, and sometimes Lithuania; today it was Lichtenstein—tomorrow, who knows? What we do know is that Scotland is better off within the United Kingdom. The only way to keep the benefits for trade and the labour market, the UK pound and cultural links is for Scotland to vote no in the referendum. That is why the UK Government will do everything we can to make a positive case for a strong United Kingdom with Scotland as an integral part.
Patient Medical Records
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to today’s debate on how our health service can use patient data to improve health care.
Using data collected by the NHS to improve patient care sounds like a wonderful idea and it should be something that we can all support. However, almost nobody in the country, apart from NHS England, the Department of Health and companies with a commercial interest in the area, support what has been proposed. The scheme, which had the chance to bring about huge benefits for patients, has suffered from a complete failure to listen to either patients or doctors. The bottom line is that people simply do not want their medical data to be sold to the private sector or used for profit-making activities, and no amount of awareness raising or leafleting will change that.
I want to ensure that we have a consent-based model for using patient data that patients are happy with and have confidence in. Patients’ opinions should be used to inform the way in which care.data works and not trampled over in the hurry to extract data. Patients matter, but we have heard no apology to all those who were not properly informed about care.data and whose confidential data would have been extracted without their knowledge if there had not been this hastily arranged delay. Why, I ask, have we had no apology to the in-patients who did not receive the leaflet, those with learning difficulties or visual impairments who could not read or understand it, and those whose first language is not English, or to the elderly, sick and infirm, who could not get to their GPs to discuss the scheme?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I fully support the principles behind care.data, but I think we need balance here. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no patients were informed at all about the fact that their hospital episode statistics data were being released under the previous Administration, and they had no opportunity either to opt in or opt out?
Mr Godsiff
I certainly accept that, and I know that the hon. Lady has already raised that with the Government. I think the Government gave an answer, then had to apologise for the answer they gave and had to correct it.
Mr Godsiff
Well, there is not a Labour Minister responding at this time; there is a Minister from the Department of Health, which is peopled by members of the coalition Government.
Let me make it clear: this is not an argument between people who are in favour of research and those who are against it. Of course, we all want to facilitate life-saving medical research, but I want to do so without damaging patient confidentiality or public confidence in the NHS. We now have another chance to get this right, and we have six months in which to do that.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a timely debate on a very important subject. Does he agree with me that a scheme that is already lacking in public confidence is not helped when Atos has been awarded the contract to extract the data from GP records? Does he agree that that should never have happened?
Mr Godsiff
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and indeed, I will come to that point later. As I said, we have an opportunity in the next six months to try to get the scheme right. If the Government now address the many concerns raised about privacy, consent and the creeping commercialisation of our health service, they have the opportunity to create a scheme that offers enormous benefit to health care and research. However, if they fail to do that and continue to steamroll ahead, ignoring public concern, in six months’ time they will find themselves in precisely the same place as they are now, faced by massive public opposition to a scheme that has the potential to do so much good and to save lives.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noticed an issue that has emerged. NHS England uploaded a vast amount of hospital patient data—188 million records—to Google servers. That was done—we have already heard mention of the firm, Atos—by PA Consulting Group, which lost a Home Office contract a few years ago because of data loss. Does he agree that it appears that NHS England has now lost control of the IT side of the project, and that before we go forward, we need full disclosure of all the uses to date of patient data?
Mr Godsiff
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has taken note of what she said and that the Department will be forthcoming in identifying exactly how much confidential NHS data have been released to private profit-making companies. He might also point out how much income the Government have received from that.
There are a huge number of problems with the existing scheme. I could mention the information leaflets that look more like junk mail and have no opt-out return slip on them, or the fact that data extraction was planned to start before the code of practice on who will be allowed to access the data was completed, or the lack of a clear figure on cost. However, perhaps the most damaging flaw in the whole plan has been the refusal to listen to or to address those concerns when they were raised by doctors and patients. We simply cannot and should not bring in a scheme that lacks the consent and approval of the vast majority of people whose confidential health data will be used.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the Chamber for consideration; it is the second time in three weeks that we have had the chance to debate the issue. Data collection is important, because of the benefits that could come from it, but confidentiality and people’s confidence in the system have been undermined. Does he agree that the fact that the NHS data collection is specific to England, and that the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister responsible has indicated that he would have some concerns over a similar proposal, indicates that there is not unanimous support for it across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mr Godsiff
As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which just goes to show that the Northern Ireland Assembly view the matter with more concern than the Department of Health seems to at the moment.
I say again that simply spending the next six months dropping more leaflets through letterboxes or building a website will not be anywhere near good enough. The Government must now come up with a coherent plan of how they will change care.data to address the many concerns that have been raised, and NHS England must work out how it will let people know about that.
Basically, the Government have two choices, but first they should stop fighting with GPs and patients who are unhappy with the scheme. I can assure the Minister that the GPs and patients who have contacted me have plenty of ideas about how the scheme could operate with proper safeguards built in. Will the Minister commit, during the six-month period, to engaging with GPs and patient groups about their concerns? As I have said, the Government have two options. They can either ensure that all the patient data extracted are only shared with non profit-making bodies working in the NHS or with recognised medical charities, or, and this is the second option, allow identifiable data to be extracted and used by companies for profit, but only, surely, when patients have specifically opted in to permit that.
The one thing any new scheme must have is clarity. Which datasets and variables will be released? Who decides what information or combination counts as identifiable information? Who will be held accountable if data are wrongly released and confidentiality breaches occur? What will happen if a patient withdraws their consent after data have been extracted, because they change their mind?
The Government must engage with GPs and patients. They could do far worse than look at the survey carried out by Pulse, which showed that three quarters of GPs believe that NHS England should abandon the opt-out system and ensure that data are extracted only after patients have given consent.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Is there any reason to believe that the opt-in would end up covering more than about 13% of patients, as is the case in other countries? What use is that to future generations that want their conditions cured and their diseases ended by good medicine?
Mr Godsiff
If the hon. Gentleman believes that only 13% would choose to opt in, does that not prove that 87% have considerable concerns about the entire basis of the scheme? People do not want their data to be taken outside of the confidentiality agreement that exists with their GP.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr Weir. I do not want to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman asked a question, the answer to which is no, it does not. Inertia is the big problem.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
As you well know, Sir Peter, that is not a point of order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to take interventions.
Mr Godsiff
Thank you very much, Mr Weir.
The Pulse survey found that as many as one in 12 GPs are considering opting out all of their patients from the scheme, and 33% said that they were undecided. Unless public awareness and GP confidence improves massively in the next six months, we will see huge opt-outs. What would the consequences of that be for the health service? I asked the Minister what would happen if a GP refused to upload patient data. His rather disconcerting reply was that
“NHS England would need to consider whether to take remedial action for breach of contract.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 275W.]
Will the Minister tell us whether such remedial action would make it impossible for GPs to continue to practise? Can he guarantee that doctors will not lose their jobs for doing what they believe to be best for their patients by protecting the confidentiality of personal data?
NHS England has said that it is delaying the scheme for six months because it wants to ensure that the public better understands the proposals. That is a hugely arrogant argument. NHS England is basically saying, “Look, we know best. We tried to get this through by stealth but we got found out. We will therefore delay it by six months while we try to explain it better to you, the public. We know best—we understand and you do not.” As I just said in response to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), 87% of the population have considerable concerns about the scheme and do not want their data to be taken outside of the confidentiality agreement that exists between a patient and their doctor.
Mr Godsiff
No, I have given way on many occasions.
NHS England must start listening. GPs in Birmingham, where my constituency is, have said that they simply do not have time to have a proper conversation with patients about data sharing. GP surgeries are already stretched, and patients struggle to get an appointment within a reasonable time frame. Are we really suggesting that GPs should be talking to patients about the minutiae of a data-sharing scheme when ill people already cannot get an appointment? Would that really be the best use of doctors’ time?
My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) raised the issue of who is going to extract the information, and pointed out that Atos appears to have won the contract. At first, I thought that that was a joke, and I looked at the calendar to check that it was not 1 April. If it is seriously being suggested that Atos, probably the most loathed and inept company operating in the UK, is to be left to extract the data, all I can say is God help the patients of this country. The Department for Work and Pensions has found that 60% of Atos disability assessments have been overturned on appeal. The company is absolutely hopeless. How on earth can the Government award it a contract to extract patient data? I ask the Minister: will it be done in this country, or on the other side of the world? I have no confidence whatever that Atos will be able to retain the confidentiality that patients want.
In conclusion, some people say that the choice is between protecting patient confidentiality and saving lives, but that is a false choice. As I said right at the start of my speech, people such as me who are concerned about the scheme are not against medical research or the provision of information to allow research to go ahead. I am opposed, along with the vast majority of people in this country, to private information about patients being sold off to private companies for private gain. That cannot be right. I urge the Government to look at the issue again and listen to what doctors and patients are saying.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
Order. Sir Peter is seeking to make a speech, but given the time, I can let him do so only if both the Minister and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) agree to it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has received any notice that Sir Peter wishes to speak.
Mr Godsiff
A number of Members had asked me whether I would mind their interventions, Mr Weir, and I took many of them, including two from the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).
Mr Godsiff
Well, one intervention and a point of order that was ruled not to be a point of order. Both were during the course of my 15 minutes. It is a matter for the Minister as to whether he wishes to give up some of his time for the hon. Member for Worthing West.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
indicated assent.
Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)
I shall call Sir Peter, but it must be a very short speech.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As I said in the previous debate on this issue, I am grateful that this debate has been held. Nevertheless, I hope that we will take the advice of Ben Goldacre, who said that patients should wait before they opt out and that NHS England should listen before it makes a final decision. I hope that we will find a way to satisfy people, and I strongly urge people to make their data available for the benefit of us all. That is what community is about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, I believe for the first time. It is also a pleasure to respond to the debate and the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff). I congratulate him on securing the debate, as well as on the keen interest he has shown in the correspondence we have conducted via written questions. We have talked through some of the issues and he has expressed concerns about the importance of patient confidentiality.
I hope today to be able to reassure Members that strong safeguards were put in place by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and that the creation of the Health & Social Care Information Centre was not a sudden event. The process is evolutionary and was debated fully and thoroughly during scrutiny of the Health and Social Care Bill a few years ago. I was a member of the Health and Social Care Bill Committee, as was the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), and it sat for longer than almost any other Committee in the House for more than a decade. It is therefore not correct to say that the issues have not been debated and properly scrutinised in the past, because they absolutely have.
Dr Poulter
I am not going to give way because of the time. I have not said anything controversial; I am just reiterating the fact that a lot of the issues that have arisen today were discussed at great length during scrutiny of that Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recall that as he made many interventions and speeches in Committee.
We need to highlight the importance of this issue. We must ensure that we have the right data and the right processes in the NHS to inform good care. It is about ensuring that we have the data to improve research, to drive better integration and, in the wake of the Mid Staffs scandal and the Francis inquiry, to ensure transparency in protecting patient confidentiality and in the quality of care provided by health care providers so that we can ensure that high quality care is provided throughout the NHS and that its quality is properly scrutinised. We must learn from examples of good care, and where, by comparison and other standards, care is not good it should be transparently exposed.
There are important research benefits, too. We know that if we want to combat disease, address some of the challenges that we face in the health system and improve our knowledge of diseases from cancer to heart disease, we need to have the right information. We have to ensure that we collect data and information to improve patient care, which is the heart of everything we are talking about today. As long as we do that—I believe that we have the right safeguards in place through the 2012 Act and through the further clarifications and reassurances provided by the amendments to the Care Bill that have been tabled for next week—we are in the right place to deliver improved transparency and care quality while ensuring that we protect patient confidentiality, in which we all believe.
Dr Wollaston
I am passionate about the principles of care, data, and I will not be opting out because of the benefits that the Minister and many others have outlined. He mentions the Francis report, and one of its fundamental principles was that people should be open and transparent about past errors and take account of genuine concerns. I am concerned that what we are hearing from the Health & Social Care Information Centre is very defensive. There is a complete refusal to be transparent about errors; it is blaming everything on a previous body. Many members of those two bodies are the same, so for us to proceed with confidence those legitimate concerns must be addressed.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is also important to highlight that sections 263 to 265 of the 2012 Act put much stronger safeguards in place. Those sections state that processes must be in place in the Health & Social Care Information Centre to ensure confidentiality and to ensure that data are always handled in the right way. The body is responsible for ensuring that those processes are kept up to date and that there are accountability frameworks for those processes. That important step forward was not in place for the previous body.
Dr Poulter
I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I want to make progress on some of the points raised in this debate. I will have to be brief any way, and she had a good chance to question me when I appeared before the Select Committee on Health last week. If she feels that she did not have an opportunity to discuss all of the issues, I am sure she will have an opportunity next week when we discuss these matters in our consideration of the Care Bill. Amendments were tabled last night to support some of the issues that we are talking about today. Those amendments will be considered next week, and I am sure those Members who cannot contribute in greater detail today because of the time will be able to contribute much more fully to next week’s debate.
Finally, it is important to talk about driving and supporting integrated, joined-up health and social care across the system, in which we all believe. I know that those Members who are members of the Health Committee believe in that because I remember being a member of that Committee with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Easington. If we are to deliver better integrated care, we need to have the right data. One of the key challenges in the past is that we did not collect the data effectively to measure what good integrated care looks like. We know we need to improve the collection of those data, and we want people with long-term conditions such as diabetes, dementia and asthma to be better supported in their own homes and communities. Of course we need to have the data to do that. A lot of those data will come from primary care, and it is important that we put together those data and analyse them to understand what good care looks like. We have not been in the right place to deal with that in the past, but I am confident that we will be in the right place to do it while protecting patient confidentiality with the measures that we are seeking to implement.
Barbara Keeley
The point that I wanted to make is in line with what the Minister is saying. Following the revelations about IT issues that I mentioned, and the apology that his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) made yesterday to the Commons, will he now agree that it would be sensible for Ministers and NHS England to consider keeping one copy of the care.data database and run staff queries against it, so that it is held in one place and not scattered about on various servers, causing consternation and the need for websites to be taken down, as they were yesterday, because NHS England does not know where the hospital data have gone? The only solution is the one that we discussed last week: keeping one copy and running staff queries against it.
Dr Poulter
It is absolutely right that the discussions that we have had in this debate and the issues raised about care.data have been helpful in building on the safeguards in the 2012 Act to improve the processes of the Health & Social Care Information Centre, as a new body, to ensure that it has particular regard to putting strong confidentiality criteria in place. It is also right to keep those criteria under regular review. Obviously, there is regular communication between that body and the Information Commissioner about issues such as protecting confidentiality.
I am sure that we have a robust set of criteria in place under the 2012 Act. It may be helpful to hon. Members if I outline what they are. I reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green that the data are not released for profit. It is about cost recovery when they are. It is also important to say that data are not released in identifiable form without a strong public policy reason: for example, in a civil emergency or some such situation. Data must be used for the benefit of the health and care system. That is a strong set of criteria for use of the data, and strong safeguards are in place. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already put in place an opt-out for patients who do not want to be involved in the process, which has not been the case in the past.
It is important in this context to highlight that we are not taking a sudden, big-bang approach or change to data; this is an evolutionary process. In 1989, in-patient data were collected for the first time; in 2003, out-patient data; in 2007 and 2008, accident and emergency data. That was about improving and driving transparency, developing better care pathways for patients with, for example, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and ensuring that we better used data to benefit the health service and patients. Now, when it is so important to drive better integration, primary care data will also be collected. That is not a revolutionary change; it is an evolutionary change. What is important is that now, under the 2012 Act, we have much stronger safeguards in place better to protect patient confidentiality and much more rigorous processes under which the Health & Social Care Information Centre, as a new body, will operate, in order to ensure that it regularly reviews its processes and uses data in the right way.
It is also important to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully supports and is committed to the principles of the programme, which will alert the NHS where standards drop, enable prompt action to be taken, help staff understand what happens to people, especially those with long-term conditions, and help us develop and improve care. However, in order to reassure hon. Members further and bring greater clarity to some of the issues and discussions, we have tabled some amendments to the Care Bill. We will have an opportunity to discuss them fully next week when we debate the Bill. I am sure that when hon. Members see them, in conjunction with the safeguards already in place under the 2012 Act that were not there before, they will be reassured.
The programme is a good one. It is doing the right thing, improving research, driving up care standards in our NHS and supporting the integration of the health and care system, which we all believe in. It is also protecting patient confidentiality. With those reassurances, I close my remarks. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity next week to debate fully any further issues or concerns that they may have. I will bring them the reassurances that they need.
A303
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I am delighted finally to have secured this afternoon’s debate. The A303 is a 92-mile road of historic importance that runs from Basingstoke to Devon and is one of only two major routes across the south-west. It is often affectionately referred to as the highway to the sun, because of its popularity with holidaymakers. I am sure that many hon. Members in the Chamber have fond memories of their long trips down it.
Unfortunately, such trips have become far from stress-free, and they now take far too long, because of the formidable traffic jams that are regarded as an everyday occurrence even outside the high season. A document published by the Department for Transport in July last year revealed that an estimated 20,000 vehicles drive within 200 metres of Stonehenge on an average day. The problems have become particularly acute since the closure of the A344 at Stonehenge. Sadly, to my constituents, the old Roman name for the road, which was the devil’s highway, seems appropriate. For many people, travelling on the A303 has become a deep source of frustration. Parents battling to the west country in half-term dread it, but it is a hassle that they face only once or twice a year. It is far worse for my constituents, who have to wrestle every day with what feels like one of the most notorious traffic blackspots in the country.
I have called the debate because I want to ensure that the 15 miles of the A303 that run through my constituency are not overlooked in the Government’s evaluation of the road as one of their national strategic priorities. More than 20 years have passed since the first dualling proposal was put on the table, and a staggering £43 million has been spent on numerous feasibility studies that have ultimately, and very sadly, come to nothing. That is all despite the fact that when the M4/M5 route to Devon and Cornwall was constructed in 1961, it was always envisaged that the A303 would be entirely dualled, given the road traffic and economic forecasts at the time. That was 53 years ago. My predecessor, the excellent Robert Key, campaigned on the matter throughout his 27-year career in the House. He tells me that he had meetings with 70 different Ministers from different Departments during that time, which even involved the late Baroness Thatcher examining maps on the floor of her office.
Sadly, debate over the dualling of the A303 has become increasingly polarised. For those who are primarily concerned with traffic flows and the prosperity of the south-west, dualling is a no-brainer that will ease congestion and boost the regional economy.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this vital debate. He is making an excellent case, which I would like to back up by saying that people in Cornwall would benefit enormously from the dualling of the A303 throughout his constituency, because it is a vital arterial road into Cornwall.
John Glen
My hon. Friend makes a wise and sensible point, and I will expand later on the economic benefits for the south-west as a whole.
On the other side of the argument, we cannot ignore the fact that the A303 runs very close to the UNESCO world heritage site at Stonehenge. We have a responsibility to protect that sacred site and reduce the blight that traffic continues to cause. If we do not, the National Trust, English Heritage, the Stonehenge Alliance and the Council for British Archaeology inform me that Stonehenge will be formally placed on the at-risk register. That would be extremely damaging to our reputation as a world leader in safeguarding our heritage.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument is about not only the megalithic monument at Stonehenge but the landscape in which it sits?
John Glen
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, which I will expand on in a moment.
The risk of Stonehenge losing world heritage status is not an empty threat. That happened to Dresden in 2009 when a new four-lane bridge was constructed. As my hon. Friend just said, we must recognise the unique nature of the environment that surrounds the A303. Understanding how the greater Stonehenge and the vast interlacing of pathways, waterways, tombs, stones and enclosures fit together is not the idle pursuit of a few; it is a national heritage responsibility for us all.
As those two perspectives collide, doing nothing is not the only option. Although people tell me, “Just get on and dual the road,” a poorly designed and badly executed overground dual carriageway that undermines a 5,000-year-old world heritage site is not an improvement worth fighting for. In the past, however, all parties have repeatedly united around one solution: a deep-bore tunnel that is at least 2.8 km long, which would pass unseen beneath the hidden barrows and earthworks of the wider Stonehenge site. It seems to me that no other realistic solution has been offered—other proposed solutions have been a cut-and-cover tunnel or open dualling—that provides the same protection for the historic asset of Stonehenge and delivers the improvements to traffic that so many of my constituents desperately seek, and which I so enthusiastically support. Successive programmes have been cancelled on the grounds of costs that made them politically impossible to deliver or justify. As a result, we are left with a highly congested road, dissatisfied local people, wasted investment in feasibility studies, long delays for businesses and an imperfect solution for those who seek fully to address the heritage concerns.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes it is difficult to look at the benefit of a project? I look back to the debates over the Channel tunnel and think of what that has delivered. Tourism is mission-critical for the south-west, and if we do not get the A303 sorted, we will have a real problem. Our small businesses depend on it, and if the situation is not improved, the potential of the south-west will never be realised.
John Glen
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Later in my speech, I will describe the analysis that has been done on the impact on the south-west economy, the support of the CBI and others, and the reasons why it is imperative to get on with improving the road.
The difference now, compared with previous attempts to deal with the problem, is that Britain’s engineering expertise has developed and we now have an international reputation for excellence in large-scale infrastructure projects that involve tunnelling. I understand that as a result of the expertise accumulated through Crossrail, the Hindhead tunnel and the Thames Tideway tunnel, the cost of such a project today should, in real terms, be around half the cost that was quoted in 1996.
I recognise that the dualling of the A303 by Stonehenge has aroused significant debate over many years, but the current impasse requires clear ministerial engagement and decisions. I therefore urge the Minister to be the one who unlocks decades of inertia—to be the Minister who finally delivers a solution for the road, rather than being added to the 70 I mentioned earlier who sadly failed.
Ten years ago, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said:
“Let’s have no further re-examinations and re-examinations and reviews—let’s get on with it”.
Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and for securing this debate. I completely agree with him on the need to be sensitive to Stonehenge and its surrounding environment. Nevertheless, does he share my observation that the road must be dualled at some future point, at least as far as Ilminster, because the volume of traffic will inevitably make it necessary? Indeed, it already has. The question is not really whether we dual it, but whether the Government have enough sense of urgency about the economic benefits for the south-west and the time that is being lost daily. Are we going to keep pushing the problem on to future generations of politicians and future Governments when we should be looking to resolve it ourselves?
John Glen
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He makes a passionate case on behalf of the Somerset people he represents, and everyone in the region, on the legitimate economic arguments for the whole country, and the south-west in particular. I fully back him up on what he said.
Will the Minister tell us how the feasibility study will be framed to deliver an unambiguous solution for the A303 in Wiltshire? I do not mean a solution on paper, and subject to further decisions near or after a general election; I mean a solution that will secure physical changes on the ground. As other Members have said, the A303 is vital to the south-west, but it is also a route used day in, day out, by local people in my constituency, and they are very concerned.
Winterbourne Stoke is a typical Wiltshire village, except that more than 30,000 vehicles thunder through it every day. In just five years, there have been two fatalities and nine serious injuries in a number of collisions. The case for the Winterbourne Stoke bypass was accepted in previous studies and public inquiries. I recently visited the proposed sites with local councillor Ian West, who said that there is no controversy over the best route or its inclusion in any upgrade to the A303. Will the Minister reassure my constituents in the village that this notorious accident blackspot will finally be addressed?
Other local areas have been similarly affected by the pollution, and particularly the noise, caused by the sheer volume of traffic. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), is present. He has drawn my attention to the increased noise and pollution caused by the sheer volume of traffic around Andover. Will the Minister outline today how he intends to tackle that and replace the particularly noisy sections in that constituency? Will he agree, at the very least, to explore resurfacing the road so that those living next to it can have relative peace and quiet restored?
The village of Shrewton in my constituency has also paid a heavy price for the recent traffic changes associated with the construction of the new visitors’ centre at Stonehenge and the closure of the A344, which I mentioned earlier. The work of the Stonehenge Traffic Action Group—STAG—under the leadership of Janice Hassett and Dr Andrew Shuttleworth has motivated me to pursue those issues.
I turn to the wider economic benefits of improvements to the route. A study carried out in 2013 for Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire councils estimates that dualling the A303 would ultimately generate more than £41 billion for the economy, create 21,400 jobs and increase visitor expenditure by £8.6 billion every year. John Cridland, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry, has said that the A303 should be fast-tracked because it is
“pivotal in underpinning the government’s broader growth priorities: boosting our export capability and maximising the economic potential of all regions.”
Of 650 south-west businesses surveyed, 89% said that the reliability of the journey time was an issue for them, and 77% said that improving the route would increase investment in the area. More than two thirds of Wiltshire businesses alone said that dualling would increase their turnover, saving time, fuel and lives. The issue therefore is not simply one of a bit of traffic on the edge of Salisbury plain. The A303 is one of just two transport arteries to the south-west. The British Chambers of Commerce has shown that upgrading it offers the highest benefit-to-cost ratio of any UK transport project, including—dare I say it—a third runway at Heathrow.
Why would businesses invest in sites if accessing them involves travelling regularly on the A303? Staff would be plagued by delays and rarely be on time, while clients would never know whether staff would turn up. The benefits, therefore, are clear, as is the choice. We can continue with the clogged-up artery that is the existing A303, or we can provide the region with a much needed lifeline to catalyse economic growth in the south-west. It is somewhat sad that seven years ago my predecessor held a debate in this Chamber on this exact topic, but since that point nothing tangible has emerged from Governments of either side.
In recent days, I have spoken to English Heritage, the National Trust and Stonehenge Alliance, and I have received representations from the Council for British Archaeology, which will not accept anything that threatens the heritage interests of the area. Decades of consultations mean that we know the position of the Ministry of Defence and of the numerous stakeholders I have referred to, which have all contributed many times to the lengthy, expensive and repetitious public inquiries over the years. Let us be honest and say that tackling Stonehenge might well be the most difficult part of the A303 programme, but let us then get on with the job.
Let us have no more hand-wringing and procrastination, flying of kites that will not get off the ground or picking off of smaller, cheaper schemes elsewhere along the route—perhaps the Countess roundabout flyover, or an underpass at Longbarrow roundabout. They may be politically more palatable and fiscally less threatening to the Treasury, but they are not really what is required. We need an imaginative and holistic solution, and a realistic, fully costed explanation of how it will be paid for.
Have we explored every funding avenue available? Will the Minister agree to examine European funding avenues related to the economic interests of the far west of the region, which would undoubtedly benefit from the A303 being upgraded? Will he work with other Government Departments, including the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to ensure that all funding associated with this UNESCO world heritage site is pursued aggressively and exhaustively? More importantly, will the Minister pledge categorically that Stonehenge will not be simply siphoned off into the “too difficult” category in the study, in order to deliver improvements elsewhere on the route?
The harsh reality is that if the Stonehenge solution is ignored and the rest of the A303 is dualled, my constituency will remain host to the bottleneck that prohibits swift and easy access to the wider south-west region.
Sarah Newton
The Government have commissioned a resilience review for the whole transport infrastructure to the far south-west in Devon and Cornwall, which is very welcome. Does my hon. Friend agree that we might also ask the Minister to consider giving the importance of the A303 greater emphasis in that infrastructure resilience report?
John Glen
That is a useful intervention. The difficult past few weeks, in which the infrastructure of the south-west has been under enormous pressure, have underscored the fact that we must open up new options for the A303. Sorting out the A303 in Wiltshire will provide a clear gateway to the south-west.
My constituents have been promised so much on this issue by many Ministers over many years; sadly, they have been let down every time. I am determined that they will not be let down again. I ask the Minister to commit today to ensuring that our hopes for the A303 can become a reality. I know that he is a plain-speaking Yorkshireman. I look for plain speaking in his response to us Wiltshire folk, who are fed up with constant words and little action.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Dr McCrea. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) is to be congratulated on securing this debate, not least because the A303 is one of the few strategic road links down to the far south-west, and particularly to Plymouth. Its importance therefore cannot be overstated. The recent extreme weather in the far south-west shows how vulnerable we are; we lack rail and road resilience when major road routes are cut.
Anne Marie Morris
Is the hon. Lady aware that only last week, the A303 was closed at the same time that our wonderful railway was out of action?
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Lady knows the region very well. I will come to those issues a little later, but she is absolutely right that there are major problems when either the M5 or the A303 closes for one reason or another. We have had relatively little investment in the south-west, as recent weeks have shown. Across the south-west, we have less investment in transport per person than any other region in the country, with the possible exception of the north-east in some modes. We are now reaping the consequences.
I say to the Minister that I fully accept that there is no open chequebook—the shadow Chancellor would jump on me if I suggested that there was—but when we look at the Hindhead tunnel, which goes under the gorgeous landscape of the Devil’s Punch Bowl in Surrey, we can see what could be done if the finance were to become available. As the hon. Member for Salisbury made clear, the A303 has long been a subject of Department for Transport attention, and his predecessor was much admired by all parties for his persistence and the intelligent way in which he tried to find a solution to the problem around Stonehenge.
The South West Regional Committee, of which I was the Chair and which reported in 2010, made it clear that we felt it important that the Department for Transport should value the route in terms of the resilience that it provided to the region. We had instances during the recent storms—I will come back to this—when the A303 was partly closed due to falling trees and the rail line was closed for engineering works, as was the M5. Nobody had actually talked to each other. Business in Plymouth and further south ground to a halt. Fortunately, co-ordination between the Highways Agency and Network Rail is now a lot better, but as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) pointed out, we have seen exactly what can happen if those roads close.
Tourism and manufacturing are hugely important issues in the south-west and Plymouth. Although rail usage is growing—when there is a line—we also need road links to bring visitors, freight and goods. Companies such as Wrigley, Princess Yachts and Babcock all need to ship products and supplies via road links rather than rail, due to the nature of the products that they are moving. The Heart of South West local enterprise partnership’s top priority is a faster, more resilient transport system, and it is pressing for improvements to the A303 as part of its key area of activity. It understands the need to move people around by road. Certainly, now that Hinkley Point C will be going forward, there will be a greater need for good road links, and improvements will be required.
The region’s transport planners have been grappling with the A303 for decades. What should be done with it? What should its status be? How can we better connect it with roads further west? The dualling argument to increase resilience is made by motoring organisations such as the RAC as well as local authorities. Dualling the road under the Blackdown hills, for example, would be a huge cost commitment, but it is undoubtedly what local people want, in the same way that tunnelling under Stonehenge is important.
Like many hon. Members here, I have driven along the A303. It is a lovely route winding through a number of counties. Judging by the Members here, it does not go through many Labour constituencies, but I say to Government Members that they have a strong, powerful voice. It is their coalition that is in government. I have seen Members from my party in areas such as the north-east make use of the strength of such a body of people. Government Members have a good opportunity, and they should ensure that they use it.
I will wind up, because I am sure that other hon. Members want to make similar points. I point out that the road does not have national status. Unfortunately, it has not been seen as important by this or previous Governments, but I hope that the Minister will now take a close personal interest in it, because it is important. We have seen the impact of weather on the south-west. If we fail to get a grip on the situation, not only will UNESCO look at Stonehenge—the hon. Member for Salisbury made that point clearly—but we will lose the important opportunity to grow the economy in the south-west. We have a lot to offer, including a lot of manufacturing companies that could do a lot more, but we cannot do it without the transport infrastructure. The A303 is a vital part of that.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
In my 17 years in Parliament—other than the period when I was a Minister, when I had to secrete references to the A303 in answers on other things—there has not been a single year in which I have not raised the issue of the A303, so I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing this debate, and for introducing it so well. The A303 is a special road. It is a road of myth and legend, about which books have been written and films made. It is Britain’s mother road. Sadly, it is a neglected mother, because successive Governments have failed to put in the investment needed, and it is frankly unfit for purpose. That is the simple point that many of us have made year after year to Government.
The hon. Member for Salisbury concentrated, quite reasonably, on Stonehenge, which is the major difficulty along the whole road. I hope that he will forgive me for concentrating, despite the fact that we do not have megaliths to hand, on the portion of the road that runs through my constituency, the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch. We have a couple of listed world war 2 hangars turned into houses that are of interest, but they do not quite merit the same attention as Stonehenge. Nevertheless, they are very interesting.
Sparkford to Ilchester is a stretch of road that should have been dualled a long time ago. There are reasons why it has not been, and in my view, those reasons are unsustainable. Casting my mind back a little, I remember appearing at a public planning inquiry in 1996 on the dualling of that stretch of the A303. Those of us who were in favour of dualling won the inquiry—the inspector found in our favour—and construction was about to start, when suddenly, in 1997, with the change of Government came a moratorium on all major road construction, and the Sparkford to Ilchester stretch was left out. That meant that work did not start when we hoped it would.
Then the regional bodies for local government in the south-west brought together the so-called south-west regional spatial strategy; very few people shed many tears when it went. Those bodies decided that the A303 should not be considered the second strategic route to the south-west. That was an utterly perverse decision, but of course the Government at that time, with many other demands for investment—
Mr Heath
In the north-east, as the hon. Gentleman says, or elsewhere. The Government were very happy to grasp that and say, “Well, the local people don’t think this is an important road, so why on earth should we invest in it?” So the road was still not dealt with at that time.
There were other knock-on effects. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Winterbourne Stoke, where I have spent many happy hours queuing in traffic over the years, and the effect of the surface noise from the road there. That problem also afflicts my constituency; around the Wincanton area, there are houses that are close to a busy road. We had a commitment 15 years ago to replace that road surface with a low-noise road surface, but guess what? The plans to do that were cancelled and the money was specifically moved to the A1(M), which was considered a higher priority.
The A303 has been constantly neglected. Also, the best has sometimes been the enemy of the good: sometimes the difficulties to do with Stonehenge and the Blackdowns—difficulties that undoubtedly exist—have been allowed to prevent anything being done along any part of the road. I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said about Stonehenge; it is essential that we find a solution.
Alison Seabeck
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—or should that be the right hon. Gentleman?
Alison Seabeck
Sorry, I am not doing very well with titles today. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if a solution is not found on Stonehenge and the Blackdown hills, dualling other bits of the road and encouraging more traffic on to them will simply cause further problems at bottlenecks? There is almost a case for sorting Stonehenge and then working backwards.
Mr Heath
Well, the same volume of traffic will be on the road, so I am not entirely sure of that. However, I agree that Stonehenge is a priority; we have to find a solution to the problem there.
The problem with the Blackdowns is that it is extremely difficult to conceive of a road scheme across the area that will meet the environmental requirements. In the case of the Blackdowns, there is an alternative, in the use of an enhanced A358 connection. I know that those in south Devon, including the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), will not see that as the ideal solution. Nevertheless it is a viable alternative, at least in the meantime, until we can find a better solution.
Let me return to the reason for dualling the parts of the A303 that can be dualled relatively simply. I would like the schemes for Winterbourne Stoke, Chicklade and Sparkford to Ilchester to be taken off the shelf; it is utterly absurd that we have not made progress on those. I am hugely relieved that this Government have finally decided that they want to do something about the A303 and have commissioned the feasibility study. I hope that it will be in the hands of the Minister relatively soon, so that decisions can be made, hopefully in time for big announcements in the autumn spending review this year.
There is every argument for doing something about the A303, but they are in three main areas. First, there are the economic arguments. We have already heard from various hon. Members that the economy of the south-west needs this connection, and ample evidence has been produced by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the local enterprise partnership and the local authorities in the area to say that this work needs to be done to unlock the economy of the south-west peninsula.
Secondly, there are perfectly sound safety arguments, certainly in relation to the area that I represent. One of the problems is that there is a relatively fast—I say “relatively”, because too often it is clogged up—dual carriageway that suddenly becomes a single carriageway, then a dual carriageway again and then a single carriageway again, just at the point when people travelling from London are at their lowest ebb and most tired. They have probably not taken a break before that point, and therefore the accident record is of some concern to me. That problem could be avoided by simple online improvements.
Thirdly, there is the point about resilience, which was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). It is simply ridiculous that we often have only one viable route to the whole of the south-west peninsula; it is ridiculous that one of the longest peninsulas in any country has such limited access to it. People in London and elsewhere sometimes do not understand just how big the south-west is. I remember that when we were talking about regional police forces, I said that the northernmost point of the so-called south-west regional police force, which was at Tewkesbury, was nearer to Scotland than to the tip of Cornwall. That is a fact. People have no conception of the distances in the south-west, yet we are served by one motorway. When that motorway is closed for any reason, as it was, sadly, by the accident near Taunton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) a little while ago, the result is chaos for the inadequate A303. Similarly, the A303 was flooded at Christmas. Perhaps that was because of freak conditions, but nevertheless we had, yet again, an example of the area’s lack of resilience.
We have to couple that with our inability to travel by rail in such circumstances, which all of us will remember from just a few weeks ago, when Paddington station was like a ghost station, because there were no trains running from it, or no trains running to anywhere that people wanted to get to. I beg the pardon of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), because he could probably get to his constituency from Paddington, but we could not get to the south-west from Paddington. Resilience is a big issue.
My last point relates to something said by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, namely that the south-west seems to be forgotten by every Government. A few months ago, I accused the Secretary of State for Transport of not knowing where the south-west is. He has proved me wrong; he knows where it is and has been there, as has my hon. Friend the Minister who is here today. However, in terms of Government investment in infrastructure, the south-west is still very much the poor relation of every other part of the country, and that is not good enough for me. I just do not see why we have to be the last in the queue for every single thing when it comes to Government investment. My plea to the Minister is this: for once, listen to the west country, listen to all the points that we are making, and do something about our wholly inadequate A303.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Let me apologise, Dr McCrea, because I may not be able to stay to the end of this debate, depending on when it finishes, as I have another meeting to attend.
I will make a short contribution picking up on the historical implications of this issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. I declare two interests: first, I am a member of the all-party group on archaeology; and, secondly, I am a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. The economic implications of this issue have already been highlighted by Members; I will not go over them again. I just point out that Stonehenge is an important element of the economic case that they have made, and we need to take it into account.
Inevitably, the issue of the A303 bottleneck in the area of Stonehenge has been raised. We need the Government to look for a long-term sustainable solution to this problem, which reflects their full cultural, environmental and international obligations. With respect to the Minister, this is not solely a traffic issue; at stake is the integrity of one of the world’s finest prehistoric landscapes.
I intervened earlier to say that this was not just about the monument. I am credited with being one of those who helped to invent landscape archaeology. I stress that the landscape in which Stonehenge sits is an important archaeological site in its own context. This Government should explore what impact on this world heritage landscape would be acceptable. Particularly for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury, the Government should explore a long-bore tunnel option. That would add to the considerable achievement of the recent closure of the A344 next to the stones, which reduced noise and traffic pollution from the road, and that in turn moved us further in the desirable direction of allowing visitors to explore the entire world heritage landscape in its completeness.
John Glen
Although my hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about the wider heritage arguments, he must acknowledge that the closure of that road before a solution for the A303 was fully established caused enormous frustration to many local residents, some of whom are in the Public Gallery.
John Howell
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. I fully accept his point, but we cannot undo what has been done historically, and we have to take the major benefits that came out of it, in terms of reducing noise and traffic pollution. We would like to get back to the amount of noise and traffic pollution being reduced, so that people can explore the world heritage landscape in its entirety.
The aim of all the key heritage bodies involved—my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury listed them in their entirety—is to regain the tranquillity and dignity of this unique cultural landscape, as well as allowing the throughflow of traffic between here and the south-west, so that present and future generations can fully enjoy and appreciate the world heritage site as a whole. Anything that can be done to achieve those two objectives is to be welcomed as something that we should do now.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this worthwhile debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing it and congratulate him on doing so. The number of hon. Members in the Chamber, especially from along the route of the A30/A303, shows how important a debate it is.
I want to quote Hansard first of all:
“The trunk roads from London to the West are quite inadequate for the traffic they have to carry. Queues up to 10 to 15 miles long are commonplace in summer on roads like A.30 and A.303. At many points there are bottlenecks, and the carriageways are quite inadequate.”—[Official Report, 14 May 1959; Vol. 605, c. 1558.]
This is from a speech made by Mr Edward du Cann, MP for Taunton, in an Adjournment debate held in May 1959. It shows that there has been quite a long debate about this road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) mentioned the part of the road in Ilminster that was to be trunked in 1997, before the moratorium on road building by the previous Government. A project involving the A30, moving into the A303, east of Honiton, was also shelved. We nearly got there, but it was stopped.
I am delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), has agreed to drive on the road and see the A303 for himself, including where improvements can be made. That is welcome. I thank him for that. As he is a Yorkshire farmer, I am certain that we will get a truthful answer from him today, and that he will commit the Government to doing something about this quickly, rather than taking too long.
I want to take issue slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). Rome is one of the most historic cities in the world, with the forum and all the Roman remains, but dual carriageways go all around it, right close to the buildings. Yet that can be maintained. We have to be able to deal with the life that we live today and the need for dualling of the A303/A30, and not live in a prehistoric world. I am keen on history, but at the end of the day we have to find a way, acceptable from both an historical and financial point of view, to ensure that we dual the A30 right the way down to Cornwall.
In this Chamber, we are probably 300 miles from Penzance. I have not done the arithmetic, but I suspect that it is only a little further from London to Scotland. People have to remember that.
Alison Seabeck
The hon. Gentleman is right. The distances are not wildly out. It is distressing, when one visits Secretaries of State in some Departments, to find that they think that Plymouth is a bit like Hastings, in terms of its distance from London. Some education is needed in Departments.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Of course, when the Minister drives the route—he has probably already done so, but he will do it officially—he will see the length of the A30/A303 and will only probably get halfway along it. By some magic, he appears to be stopping at Honiton; I have no idea why. But seriously, we have to improve the road.
Hon. Members have said that we have few arterial routes into the west country. Bristol is not the west country; it may be part of the west country, but there is much after Bristol. To get to Devon and Cornwall, people need to cross Wiltshire and Somerset. We need to get that road done. A previous solution talked about in the spatial strategy—building on the A358 and dualling it out to the A303—is not a solution, because all that does is drive motorway and A303 traffic on to and off an already congested road. The west country—Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, and Wiltshire—relies a lot on tourism. We also rely on our businesses being able to be able to move their goods and services around. Come the summer, there are times when those roads are completely blocked. That has a huge economic effect on our businesses. Money for dualling the A303/A30 would be well spent.
I have made the point before in Parliament that, although I am 110% behind the Government taking action on our deficit—the huge sum that we have to borrow day in, day out, to pay the running costs of this country—there is an argument that says that, when interest rates are so historically low, we should borrow money to build infrastructure, because that builds up our economy and gives us a great future.
We expect our fair share of proceeds in the west country. Vast sums may or may not be spent on High Speed 2, yet we have railways that are falling into the sea. We are doing our best to make sure that that does not happen, and that railways are rebuilt. A second railway line needs to come down to the west country. All this is part of the infrastructure. Roads are also important.
On a slightly more controversial note, people say, “If you dual those roads, the traffic will go faster and it could cause more pollution.” However, in my view, it causes much less pollution. There is nothing worse than car engines ticking over for hours on end; cars do not run well when the engines are not running smoothly, and the amount of fuel and carbon monoxide that comes out of cars that are queuing for hours adds to pollution.
In my constituency, especially coming out of Honiton, several villages along the A30, which leads into the A303, have poor access to and egress from that road. There have been many accidents along it, so there are many good reasons, from a traffic safety point of view, for improving it.
People might think that I, as the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, would be telling the Government, “You must start by dualling the A30/A303 from Honiton eastwards,” but I am not saying that. I say that eventually we must dual the whole road. We must not be stopped by either Stonehenge or the Blackdowns in my constituency, because those are the expensive parts of dualling the road. In a former life, I drove around the whole south-west region. I often drove down the A30 into Cornwall. Short stretches of single-track road do not hold up traffic anywhere near as much as longer lengths of single-track road. My point is that we have to start the job. There is a saying that a job started is a job half done. There is no doubt that, once we break the logjam by starting to dual the road, it will be dualled the whole way.
John Glen
I accept my hon. Friend’s positive approach, but does he acknowledge that, for the large volume of people going all the way through to the furthest extremity of the south-west region, the economic advantages of spending money on the route will not be realised unless they can get through the significant bottlenecks near Stonehenge? We have to do something; otherwise people will not get down to the south-west quickly enough.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is fighting the corner for Stonehenge, but if we improve the roads either side of Stonehenge, we will solve the Stonehenge issue. We do not want to say, as the previous Government did in many respects, that we will not spend any money on the A30/A303 unless the Stonehenge situation is sorted. I will support him all the way in whatever he wants to do to get his piece of the road done, but we should not let that be the piece that holds up the whole road. I will not necessarily throw all my rattles out of the pram—I will throw only a few of them—when the A30/A303 at the Honiton end, going east, is not the first part to be dualled. I believe that the dualling will happen, and it is right that it does. We are considering the long-term strategy for the south-west. The A30/A303 has to be part of that strategy. Businesses, the local enterprise partnerships and councils are all pulling together, which is amazing in itself, so let us not say that it has to be Somerset, Devon or Wiltshire. It has to be all of us pulling together.
Mr Heath
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need the Government to commit to a strategic plan for the whole A303 corridor. What part is done first depends on how quickly things can be worked up, how long the regulatory and planning processes take and all the rest of it. We know that some bits will be difficult and some bits will be easy, but we want the Government to commit to a comprehensive plan.
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman is right. The improvements are set up in five pieces for five different areas. Some of those pieces will be easier to start than others. I urge the Minister to get on with it. We have talked for an awfully long time, and people want to see something happening on the ground. We could do with a bulldozer or a JCB sometime before 7 May 2015. I do not know what is happening on that day, and the Minister cannot possibly comment.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. He makes a powerful case, because we have a long-term economic plan. From the Isles of Scilly up to Bristol, we are all united. A key part of the Government’s long-term economic plan is to rebalance the economy so that every region contributes to the success of our nation. Every LEP has identified that this infrastructure is mission-critical.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is right. The Government’s long-term economic plan is essential for ensuring that the west country gets its fair slice of the cake. We will contribute hugely to the economy, and we will help to build growth. People always want to come on holiday to the west country. Until we had all this rain, the sun did nothing but shine in the west country. I am surprised that we have managed to have such an amount of rain. In all seriousness, people come to the English riviera in south Devon, and they come to Somerset and Cornwall. They visit Stonehenge in Wiltshire, but they would like to be able to move on at a reasonable speed without being jammed for ever; if they cannot, it probably does not show Stonehenge to advantage. It probably sticks in people’s memory as that horrendous place where they were jammed in traffic. Improving the A303 will hugely help the national economy and the west country. The scale of the flooding has caused setbacks for people, businesses and property; now is the time for us to move forward positively.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. We have twice had statements in Parliament from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and others on money to be spent on the A303. That is why the situation is different now from in previous years: the Government have committed real cash to getting the road done. My one plea is for the Minister to get on with it. He should get the money out of the Treasury, which is a naturally generous body, as soon as he can; otherwise, it might take the money away. Let us get on with building the road, so that not only can there be a good future for our constituents and businesses, but all the people who come to the west country have a good experience and come back again.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate, which has attracted interventions and speeches from no fewer than eight speakers from both sides of the House. All of today’s speakers have made important points on this piece of road. It is difficult to talk about it as a “piece of road”, because it is so long. He described it as “the highway to the sun.” Coming from Birmingham, I know such highways well. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) describes it as “Britain’s mother road”. Both of those descriptions are accurate.
Many hon. Members have talked about the economic importance of the A303. Most notably, it was a major part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck). There has been unanimity today on the need to invest in creaking parts of the road network to cope with demand, improve safety, relieve congestion and secure jobs and growth. There is also an understanding that, however we do that, it has to be done in a way that improves our communities and quality of life. Protecting the environment is an add-on to that and has to be part of the process.
The A303 is a road that has tested the ability of successive Governments to deliver those objectives. We have to be honest about that. There is a clear need to improve the route, which is vital for the entire south-west’s connectivity to the rest of the UK. Incomplete dualling over the years has resulted in a number of bottlenecks, about which we have heard today. Those bottlenecks cause road safety problems and cost trade and tourism. There has been a range of continuing reviews, public inquiries and policy changes from the 1990s to the current day. They have demonstrated just how contentious delivering some crucial road upgrades can be in practice. Any solution to this matter will be difficult, but I am concerned—some of the issues put to the Minister are real ones—whether the Government’s approach fully learns the lessons of the past. I have a number of questions for him to tease that out. The recent floods have underlined just how important it is to improve strategic transport connections to the south-west more generally. It is no good just looking at roads, although they are important; we need to take into account all the transport networks of the south-west—that point has been made by a number of Members today—and improve transport resilience across the piece in the region.
I will not attempt to hide the fact that, like this Government, we faced challenges in delivering a second arterial road to this part of the country when we were in government. As Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) committed to improving the A303 in 2003. Our process was subject to lengthy public inquiries and the cost of the proposed schemes rose significantly during that period. When we left office, however, the Highways Agency had a costed and timetabled plan to improve the A303. That included—it has been contentious for some in the Chamber—dualling the A358 from Ilminster to Taunton, which avoided some of the problems with the area of outstanding natural beauty at Blackdown hills. What is the status of that plan now?
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about money, and we need to press the Minister on that. When the Government entered office, nearly £4 billion of planned investment for our roads network was cut. Those are not my figures, but those of the National Audit Office. The Highways Agency budget for capital investment in roads has been cut from £1.6 billion in 2010-11 to just £877 million in 2013-14. That has had a big impact on specific road slippages.
A lot has been said about delivering major progress. Things were said about that in the autumn statement, but the truth is that most of the road schemes that are being talked about were started under the previous Government. I do not say that just to make a political point, although I am making something of a political point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) wanted to be here today, but was unable to come. He has said that the Government’s failure to invest in infrastructure has made the reality of improving the A303 further away than it could be.
On this side of the House, we are pleased that Ministers are finally talking about the need to invest in our country’s long-term transport infrastructure, but the important thing is to start delivering it. In the spending review of June 2013, the Government committed to producing a feasibility study on solutions for an alternative road route to the south-west, and I have a number of questions for the Minister on that. Will he clarify the study’s intended publication date? There has been some talk about that being spring 2015. I am sure that all of us are looking to spring 2015 for all sorts of things, but I suspect that the constituents of Members who have spoken today, seized though they will be by events in spring 2015, want to know what the significance of that study will be for the road scheme.
John Glen
The real lesson of the past is that publishing reports near general elections ensures that nothing happens for another five years. It is absolutely imperative that we have a clear proposal from the feasibility study much sooner than spring 2015. Does the shadow Minister not agree?
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me in many ways. It is important that the Minister is clear about the issue. If we are talking about publication in spring 2015, is the bottom line that it might not even be published before the next general election? If it is published before the general election, when does he, whichever Government are elected, see the study being put into operation in practical terms?
Neil Parish
I want to ask the shadow Minister a direct question. The A303 was about to be dualled in 1997. If the British people do not make the right decision and elect a Labour Government in 2015, can he assure us that, if it is in place to go, that road will be built and not shelved as the previous Labour Government did in 1997?
Richard Burden
I will make a number of points to the hon. Gentleman, and the first is that I would love to have a Tardis, for this issue and for many other things. I would love the result of the last general election to have been different. I am sure that the Conservatives would have liked to have won the last general election, but they did not quite manage that. There are lessons to be learned by all parties on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View said, we have committed to a review, but the fact is that the finances of this country are opaque and what is going on is not clear. We will and are going to have to go through everything before the general election to work out what can be done.
The points raised by the hon. Member for Salisbury were well made. This issue has been subject to delay. Whoever is elected next year, we need to know the timetable for discussion and for those decisions to be made and put into effect, one way or another.
I fully admit that the decades of delay have been under different and successive Governments, but perhaps the Minister can explain why it was only in January of this year that he wrote to the relevant Members—I quote his response to a question from the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey)—to
“set out a brief synopsis of our proposals for the study.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 356W.]
Is that the only practical progress that has been made by the Government since the summer of last year? If not, will the Minister set out what else has been done? If the study is to take nearly two years, when does he expect a costed and timetabled plan to be in place? That is what is needed for delivery. The hon. Member for Salisbury has rightly said that a new feasibility study needs to take into account things that have happened so far. A number of Members have talked about the previous south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, which was published in 2002 and took an integrated approach to tackling transport problems in the region. Does that have any status in the Government’s thinking, and if so what?
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View has talked about the work done by the former South West Regional Committee. Regional Committees did some excellent work in their short life, including on this issue. Will that work form part of what the Government do and say on the feasibility study? Given that the congestion problems on the road have remained broadly similar, is there not a case for updating what has already been done, rather than simply commissioning a new study? There seems to be some confusion on that point. If I have misunderstood what is happening, perhaps the Minister will tell me. What action are Ministers taking to ensure that the feasibility study will not just result in an A303 proposal again being subject to further public inquires and further legal challenge?
Recent events have underlined just how important it is to improve transport connections to the south- west. At a debate last week on weather events in the south-west, Members from across the House spoke about the devastating impact the floods have had on their communities. Our thoughts are with all those communities that have been affected. Labour party candidates from that area have been on to us, saying that investment needs to be prioritised. Those points are made to us by our people in the south-west, as well as by those in this House. It is not only about restoring rail services, important though that is, but ensuring that the transport network as a whole to the south-west can cope with future pressures and be resilient. I therefore want to press the Minister for more clarity on the Government’s plans for future investment.
The transport network in the south-west is increasingly under threat. There has been significant concern among local authorities trying to improve resilience on the peninsula. Can the Minister confirm whether the funding that he is talking about on the rail network, apart from anything else, is the same money that was pledged in 2013, or is it new money? If it is not, where will it come from and what cuts will be made elsewhere?
Equally, I welcome Network Rail’s proposals for an alternative to the Dawlish line, which is expected to be published in July. After two attempts by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) to raise this question last week, I ask the Minister again to clarify how a Dawlish avoiding route will be funded. Will new money now be available from central Government? It is important that we have clarity from the Government on both the rail and the road situation. It is important for the Government to consider the needs of the transport system, as well as land management and flood defence, holistically. That is partly what today’s debate is about.
First, the report on options for the Dawlish avoiding line should clearly be developed in conjunction with the A303 feasibility study to ensure that they come together to ensure needs are met. If that is going to be the case, can the Minister confirm whether they will be parallel processes that do not link up? Secondly, will the Minister think again about the new national networks policy statement proposed for the future of our road and rail? This planning document, which is open to consultation at the moment, does nothing to ensure that our existing transport networks are flood-resilient. I understand that, privately, his Department is aware of this and aware that the policy statement requires major work to ensure that it reflects future planning policy properly and that it is climate-resilient. If that is the case, it needs to be revised. So I think we need to hear a little more from the Minister about that one.
If the NPS is meant to be the Government’s vision for future transport, and the omission of flood resilience remains, that is highly concerning. In the light of all this, will the Minister clarify what consideration is being given to climate change and future weather shocks in the A303 feasibility study?
The Opposition take investment in our long-term infrastructure seriously. It is not about rushing to announce long lists of schemes or studies without considering future risks and shocks. It is about properly considering the options and future pressures, and establishing clear and costed plans for delivery. It is about looking at our transport network in an integrated way so that we can meet the needs of the future. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify some of the issues raised, because the A303—Members have alluded to many problems along the line of the route—is not and cannot be a stand-alone issue. It is indicative of a need to deliver an effective strategic transport network for the south-west in future. I hope that when we leave the Chamber today, the Minister will have provided us with greater clarity, rather than greater confusion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate on the future of the A303. I know this subject is of great importance to him and to other hon. Friends and Opposition Members. I am aware that he has raised issues about the performance of the A303 at Stonehenge and details of the Department's feasibility study during business questions.
The A303 is an important trunk road that passes in close proximity to the Stonehenge world heritage site, and the issue of improving this road has been considered by successive Governments, as we heard. I very much recognise the strategic importance of this corridor and therefore of finding solutions to its problems. Before I respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend, the Member for Salisbury, it is perhaps worth taking the opportunity both to set out this Government’s position on investment in the strategic road network, but also the history of proposals for major improvements to the A303, as well as setting out how my Department will consider options for future investments. Indeed, I hope that I can make progress where even Mrs Thatcher failed.
Before I go on, I will respond to a couple of the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He recognised that the previous Government had been engaged in a degree of stop-go—mainly stop in terms of the A303. Although he recognised that fact, there was no straightforward apology, and I was rather perturbed to hear him say that when they left office, they had a costed plan. Nothing was costed when the previous Government left office. The public finances were in a catastrophic state. Indeed, when they had some money in 1997, when they took office, they announced a moratorium, so I will take no lessons from the Opposition on how to organise a road investment programme.
We have controlled spending so that we can increase genuine investment, and we will build on the previous work done in planning the feasibility of this route. On timing, we have set ourselves an ambitious programme, and we hope to have some news in the autumn statement. Indeed, when the announcements are made in the autumn, it will be interesting to hear what the shadow Chancellor says about following through on the promises when the Labour party writes its manifesto.
Alison Seabeck
The Minister is talking about financing and the envelope in which we are all working. Has consideration ever been given—this will not be popular in some parts—to tolling a tunnel and paying for it that way?
Mr Goodwill
I made it clear in front of the Select Committee last week that we are certainly not going down that route. The decision on the A14 Huntingdon bypass makes that very clear indeed. In fact, I was reported as saying we have drawn a line in the sand on that one.
As part of the progress we are making, Department officials met local stakeholders in Taunton on 24 January to discuss the scope of the study, and officials are working to incorporate the views of stakeholders when finalising the scope.
I said that it may be useful to set out the historical background in terms of the previous proposals for major strategic improvements to the road. Proposals to complete the dualling of the A303 were made in the 2002 London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, and, together with improvements to the A358 between Ilminster and Taunton, they could have created a second strategic route to the south-west. However, by 2007, with the cancellation of the Amesbury to Berwick Down scheme owing to increased costs and the south-west region’s conclusion that some schemes could not be funded from the regional funding allocation, the Highways Agency was no longer able to progress the proposals.
My hon. Friend may also be aware that Somerset county council held a summit with other relevant stakeholders in 2012, the outcome of which was a commitment for further work on the relative prioritisation of potential interventions and consideration of possible funding avenues. A grouping of local authorities and local enterprise partnerships produced an initial analysis and business case for future improvements to the A303 corridor, to reiterate the importance of investment in the corridor. This work provides a useful starting point for more detailed work into the consideration of possible solutions to the problems along the A303.
On this Government’s commitment to infrastructure investment, we have already announced increased levels of Government funding to deliver improvements all around the strategic road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to deliver a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement of 26 June last year, which announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review.
The Treasury’s Command Paper, “Investing in Britain’s Future”, set out that the Government will invest more than £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of both national and local roads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned. This includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of that network.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury is aware, for future investment planning, the Highways Agency is conducting its route-based strategy process, which involves local stakeholders in the consideration of future priorities. It might be helpful to say a little more about the agency’s approach, because that is the mechanism by which we will consider the investment needs of the entire strategic road network.
In our May 2012 response to the recommendations of Alan Cook’s report, “A fresh start to the strategic road network”, we agreed to develop a programme of route-based strategies to inform the identification of future transport investment for the entire strategic network. Route-based strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning throughout the network and see greater collaboration with local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of future investment that might be required on the network. We will produce a uniform set of strategies for the entire network, including the A303, as part of the south west peninsula route-based strategy.
The Highways Agency completed a series of local engagement events last autumn to help identify performance issues and future challenges. I welcome the enthusiasm with which stakeholders in the south-west, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, have participated so far. The agency and the Department will use the evidence to prioritise and take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions that will cover operations, maintenance and, if appropriate, potential road improvement schemes. Route-based strategies therefore provide an opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence about problems on the A303, so that the need for improvements can be considered and a plan for future investment developed.
My hon. Friend highlighted the issue of congestion on the A303 and the problems experienced as the road passes the Stonehenge world heritage site. The Government very much recognise such issues and the importance of transport infrastructure to support the economy. We are committed to identifying and funding early solutions to the longstanding problems on the A303-A30-A358 corridor, initially by undertaking a feasibility study.
Richard Burden
The Minister was rushing through different things—the route-based strategy and the feasibility study—and I may have missed something, but will he clarify when he expects the route-based strategy to be completed and how it will feed into the feasibility study? Given the estimates that I have heard, the report of the feasibility is due in the spring of 2015. Is that what is intended?
Mr Goodwill
No, we hope to make better progress than that and to be in a position to make an announcement based on that study in the autumn statement this year. The good news is that that study is one of six on the strategic road network. The A303 is already in the final of that competition.
Mr Goodwill
I wish for no less for the hon. Gentleman, I am sure.
It might be useful to say a little more about the approach we are taking, as the feasibility study is the mechanism by which we will identify early solutions to the problems on the A303-A30-A358 corridor. The aim of the study will be to identify the opportunities and understand the case for future investment solutions on the corridor that are deliverable, affordable and offer value for money, including noise mitigation where appropriate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury suggested. Much work has been carried out, but agreement has not been reached on a set of solutions. It is therefore important for us to carry out this study to ensure that we understand the priorities for the corridor and that proposals for investment demonstrate a strong and robust economic case for investment, as well as value for money, and are deliverable.
John Glen
Does the Minister accept that the Stonehenge case will require not only a value-for-money approach, but a perspective on the wider heritage interests? What work is he doing to engage with other colleagues in government to take account of the particular concerns at Stonehenge?
Mr Goodwill
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of issues associated with the route-based studies up and down the country include environmental or heritage considerations. It is important not to take the view that, because they are sometimes too difficult, they should not be considered properly.
The study work will be conducted in stages, with the Department initially looking to identify the current and future challenges along the corridor. We are keen to ensure that we have the most up-to-date and relevant information available to inform the study. The Department has asked stakeholders to furnish us with any additional study work or analysis that they might have commissioned. The next stage will be to identify the range of solutions or measures that could address the problems identified along the corridor. Again, we will look to build on previous work, rather than starting from scratch, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield suggested, but we will not rule out other potential investment proposals that may emerge from the first phase of the route-based strategy process, as well as potential investment proposals on the A358.
We will look to engage with a range of stakeholders throughout the life of the study, including local highway authorities, local enterprise partnerships and local environmental groups. A stakeholder reference group will be established to ensure a mechanism through which the views of stakeholders may be incorporated in the study work. The views of hon. Members will also be important in the deliberations. The outputs of the route-based strategy and of the six feasibility studies will inform the Department’s roads investment strategy, which is being developed and which we have committed to publish by the end of the year.
I fully understand the Stonehenge concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. As is well known, the single carriageway section of the A303 can cause congestion during traffic peaks on bank holidays and through the summer. I am aware that local lobby groups have been established, such as the Stonehenge traffic action group, of which I understand that my hon. Friend is aware.
The new Stonehenge visitor centre opened in mid-December 2013 and is situated at Airman’s Corner on the A360. In terms of traffic to the centre, the car park fails to meet demand at busy times, and this leads to traffic that is queuing to enter the visitor centre backing up along the A360 and blocking it to other users. In extreme cases, the traffic has reached as far as the A303 at Longbarrow roundabout, causing congestion on the A303. In support of the new visitor centre and closure of the local road, the Highways Agency has carried out extensive improvements to the Longbarrow roundabout at the junction of the A303, with significant investment of more than £3 million to support the Stonehenge attraction.
In addition, drivers have been using the nearby byway and lay-bys to get a good view of the stones, which has further exacerbated congestion on the A303. The Highways Agency has worked with Wiltshire county council and the police to prohibit certain movements and to prevent drivers parking illegally, guiding them by the designated route to the visitor centre. I assure hon. Members that while we await the outcome of the feasibility study, the Highways Agency will continue to monitor and respond to congestion at this location. Wiltshire police have invited some local representatives to a meeting with key agencies, including the Highways Agency, the county council, English Heritage and the National Trust, to look at the short-term issues likely to arise this summer.
Given the flooding that we have seen over recent weeks and months, I emphasise to my hon. Friend that the strategic road network in the south-west has performed well, although there was a closure one weekend. By and large, the network has been kept running, keeping the south-west open for business during this difficult period and allowing the replacement buses to run. The importance of the A303 has been emphasised in light of the issues experienced on the rail network.
Flooding occurred at two locations on the A303, at Ilchester and at Deptford, which was due to adjacent water courses and groundwater run-off from fields. Flooding at Ilchester meant that the A303 was closed in both directions for 20 hours. The diversion route was utilised to keep the route into the south-west open. The flooding at Deptford saw the eastbound carriageway affected for 12 days, although within two days a contraflow was put in place, enabling traffic to get through.
In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury on securing the debate. I have been clear that the Government are committed to and have set out plans for large-scale investment to improve our strategic road network in the relatively short term. We are also committed to developing a longer-term programme of investment through the route-based strategy process. Through the A303-A30-A358 corridor feasibility study, we will work closely with local stakeholders to ensure we consider current and future transport problems and the range of possible solutions that could deal with them. As I said, it is important that proposals for future investment are clearly supported by the local stakeholders and that there is a clear consensus on what is required. Ultimately, any proposals for future investment need to be able to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits.
Every cloud is said to have a silver lining, and the weather in the south-west this year has emphasised the importance of a resilient road network when we have problems on our rail network. The fact that big investment is going into north-south rail connections makes an even stronger case for investment in roads in the south-west. I look forward to my road trip to Tiverton and Honiton—a road that I have travelled before. Having heard the points made today, I think that I need to set off in good time.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I thank hon. Members for their participation in that important debate. I wish the Minister well on his road journey.
Domestic Violence (West Essex and Harlow)
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Dr McCrea. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on an important matter that affects thousands of men and women up and down the country. I want to give special recognition to Safer Places in Harlow, Essex county council, Nick Alston, who is police and crime commissioner for Essex, ManKind and Women’s Aid for the assistance they have given me in preparing for this debate. I also welcome the work done by the TUC on domestic violence training and education.
For six months, I have put in for this debate because of the particular problem of domestic violence in Harlow and because of two tragedies that have afflicted our town. That is why I must pay tribute to Mr and Mrs Blunnie, who are in Westminster today. They have been incredibly strong throughout their ordeal since their daughter’s death, and continue to astound me with their campaign to prevent any other families from going through similar tragedies. I am hugely grateful to the Minister, who has agreed to meet the family after the debate.
This debate is much needed. Nationally, crime survey statistics suggest that 31% of women and 18% of men have experienced domestic abuse, with two women being killed per week by a partner or former partner.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about male victims of domestic violence. Female victims are more numerous and sometimes more vulnerable, but we should not overlook male victims, who can fall victim to domestic violence in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Often they are unable to talk about the issue or to find resources available for victims of their gender.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Domestic violence is evil, whichever sex is afflicted by it.
As I said, crime survey statistics suggest that 31% of women and 18% of men have experienced domestic abuse. Today I want to focus specifically on west Essex and Harlow, where there is an above average amount of domestic abuse incidents. I am incredibly proud of my town. I love living there and am very proud to be its MP, but we cannot sweep the problems we have under the carpet and so it is important to set out some of the problems that we face. In Harlow alone domestic abuse makes up 10% of all crime, a statistic that has increased by 2% in the past year; 32% of all offences are assault with injury. Across Essex, police deal with 80 domestic incidents per day. As I mentioned, we have sadly lost two Harlow residents to domestic violence recently, Eystna Blunnie in June 2012 and Claire Parrish in July 2012.
I therefore want to raise three issues this afternoon. First, what the situation is in west Essex in relation to domestic abuse; secondly, what steps are already being taken to improve how domestic abuse is dealt with; and thirdly, what needs to be improved and how that could be achieved.
As I have already mentioned, there are two tragic cases I would like to discuss that really typify some of the problems that we face. The first is the distressing case of Eystna Blunnie. Before she met her ex-fiancé, Eystna was a happy young woman who had a close relationship with her family. During her relationship with her ex-fiancé she became withdrawn, and had little contact with her mother and father. In April 2012, she was taken to hospital after being strangled and falling unconscious. She was pregnant at the time, with a daughter called Rose. She made the decision to leave her ex-fiancé, and returned to live with her family. But two months later, and just days before her baby was due, she received a text from him saying he had a surprise for her. She was found by the roadside with over 50 injuries, and died shortly afterwards from severe head injuries. Her ex-fiancé was found guilty of her murder and of causing the death of their unborn baby, Rose. He was jailed for a minimum of 27 years. I was due to see her in my surgery just a few days after she died. During the court case, it transpired that her ex-fiancé had previously been arrested for assaulting ex-girlfriends.
The second tragic death is that of Claire Parrish, a mum of four living in Harlow. Her partner murdered her just hours after she told him that she wanted to end their relationship because of his domestic abuse. Like three in four victims, Claire was sadly one of the many who felt unable to contact the police.
Of course, those cases are horrific examples of the terrible tragedies that can occur. But they unfortunately also reflect the wider problem of domestic abuse in west Essex, which has one of the highest rates of domestic violence in the country. Between 2003-04 and 2011-12, recorded incidents of domestic abuse increased by nearly 88% across Essex; they increased by 25% between 2010-11 and 2011-12. The cost of domestic abuse in Essex alone is £86 million per year. It represents a substantial amount of police work.
Those statistics can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, we know from studies that the incidence of domestic abuse is higher in areas of deprivation, and that is sadly reflected in Harlow wards. Toddbrook, Little Parndon, Hare Street and Netteswell are in the top 30% of the most deprived areas in England; unfortunately, they also have the highest rates of domestic abuse in my constituency. On the other hand, it is good that Essex police are recording incidents of domestic abuse thoroughly, and it has been acknowledged that changes in how records are kept and county priorities are one of the reasons why domestic abuse figures in Essex are so high.
Yet that must not stop us acknowledging that there is a clear problem with domestic abuse. In the aftermath of tragedies such as the deaths of Eystna Blunnie and Claire Parrish, it is worth remembering that Essex police and Essex county council have taken important steps forwards in how they treat domestic abuse. They have created a new domestic abuse strategic board, and I praise them for that. I am glad for the enormous amount of work done by the Minister, who is taking a zero tolerance approach and is extending Clare’s law across the United Kingdom. I am hopeful that that will prevent victims from being sucked into a cycle of abuse that is difficult to break. I also recognise that the east of England has the best conviction rate in the country for cases of domestic violence, with Essex having the second highest conviction rate of all the criminal justice areas in 2011-12.
That does not minimise in any way, however, the significant failings that led to a lack of help for Eystna and Claire. There are three main problems that I wish to discuss. First, current training regarding domestic abuse for people working in key public services is inadequate. There were a number of occasions where better training for front-line staff might have provided Eystna with the help she so badly needed. For example, she was under the care of midwives and housing officers. She was also seen at A and E, and had reported to the police that she was being abused. Despite coming into contact with all those services, she received little support.
Eystna’s case is echoed in the review by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary of Essex police’s handling of domestic abuse cases in 2013, which reported that
“most staff were not able to demonstrate a broad understanding of the wider approach to domestic abuse, and of how dealing with it effectively can enhance the confidence of victims and ultimately prevent homicides.”
Nationally, training has also been identified as a priority, and a recent report said that there is a need for improved training and awareness about domestic violence and abuse for GPs and healthcare professionals. The training also needs to extend to the Crown Prosecution Service, which acknowledged that it made a mistake by not initially charging Eystna Blunnie’s ex-fiancé when he tried to kill her in April 2012. Healthy relationship education should be extended in classrooms. Victims of domestic abuse tend to be women in their early 20s, and education will hopefully give them the skills to deal with a bad relationship and encourage them to speak up if they are in an abusive one.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I also represent a constituency in Essex, and we have many issues with domestic violence. My hon. Friend touched on the issue of training in the CPS and the health and social services. I, too, have experienced horrifying cases. Does he agree that in addition to improving training we must integrate the services better to co-ordinate the services and support for the victims of this awful abuse and to create stronger support structures and signposting for those vulnerable individuals?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am proud to have her as a near neighbour in Essex. Sharing information and safeguarding are crucial issues, which I will come on to. She makes an important point, and I hope the Minister is listening to her.
Gareth Johnson
I want to build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I used to practise in the criminal justice system in Essex, in which I saw both good and bad practices. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) agree that it is incumbent on HM Court Service to play a role, so defendants and victims are not left alone together, for example? In my experience, the witness service does a fantastic job in preventing that kind of thing. Nevertheless, it is important that courts ensure that the interests of both parties are protected while they are going through the criminal justice system.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am sure the Minister is listening carefully to what he has to say.
Perpetrators tend to come from families in which there is a history of abuse. Studies show that nearly a quarter of young people in the UK think that abuse or violence is sometimes okay. It must be stressed to young people that abuse in any form and for whatever reason is never acceptable. I am pleased that Essex county council is working with schools to develop a programme to help students recognise abusive relationships. However, abuse should be tackled nationally, and the curriculum should focus on altering the creation of violence through targeted education. That could include training on self-esteem and values; learning about the help that is out there, such as Clare’s law, and how to access it; and special training for tutors in schools.
Victims have identified that how they are supported needs to be reformed. Following the terrible death of Eystna, Mr and Mrs Blunnie told me that despite good help being available from individual police officers, they felt let down by Victim Support. They received little follow-up, always had to be the first to make contact and had to speak to different people each time. Ultimately, they came to rely upon a charity called Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse for support, to which I give huge thanks for all it has done. The situation is disappointing, and I encourage Victim Support to review what it can do for victims and their families.
Finally, one of the major problems that was identified in the handling of domestic abuse in Essex is the lack of cohesive information sharing across services, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) referred. It is shocking that despite the fact that Eystna was pregnant and was known to many key services to have a fiancé with serious mental health problems and a history of abusing women, a sufficient safeguarding plan was not put in place. The HMIC review strongly criticised Essex police for failings across the force in that area. It said:
“We found poor communication between those providing victim care, investigators and voluntary sector support workers…The force needs to intensify its work with other agencies across Essex to develop a more co-ordinated approach to domestic abuse.”
That view has been expressed to me privately, with the suggestion that there needs to be a stronger emphasis on mental health and substance misuse issues. It is essential that services work together and share information when people’s lives are at risk.
If we are to avoid tragedies such as those that happened in Harlow and prevent such things from happening again anywhere, we must not only learn lessons but act on them. As I have said, that means providing education in schools, investing in and focusing on areas of high deprivation and significant domestic abuse, fully implementing Clare’s law, ensuring proper information sharing among services and safeguarding vulnerable people. The Government are making significant efforts on a national level, but we must ensure that they also work on a micro-level. Local areas—in particular, those with high levels of domestic abuse—should have everything at their disposal to deal with this ever-increasing tragedy. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the opportunity to debate this serious issue. I thank him for the measured way in which he presented his remarks. These are difficult issues to discuss without emotion.
Domestic violence is unquestionably a terrible crime, and I give my absolute assurance that the Government is committed to tackling it robustly. Getting a clear picture of the prevalence of domestic abuse is always a challenge because it is so under-reported; we must deal with that problem. The crime survey for England and Wales, which measures what people tell us, rather than crime recorded by the police, estimates that 1.2 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year. That is a huge number. The police and crime plan for Essex estimates that there were 44,000 victims of domestic abuse in the county, which has a population of 1.7 million.
I am aware that in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across Essex there have been some tragic cases, and domestic abuse is often fatal. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, six people were killed by their partners or ex-partners in Essex in the three years between 2009 and 2012. That was against a national backdrop of 76 women being killed by their partners or ex-partners last year. Although we can take some comfort in the fact that that is the lowest figure since 1998, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that anything more than zero is too many.
My hon. Friend mentioned the two particularly tragic deaths in Essex of Eystna Blunnie and Claire Parrish. Eystna was brutally murdered only days before she was due to give birth to her baby, Rose, in 2012. She was looking forward to being a mother. When she died, her profile picture on Facebook featured a recent ultrasound scan. She told friends that she “could not wait” to be a mother, and added:
“Only 17 days and counting”,
but her life was cut short when she and her unborn child were brutally murdered, as my hon. Friend described.
I want to take the opportunity to offer my sincere condolences to Eystna’s family for the loss of their daughter and granddaughter, and to the family of Claire Parrish for their sad loss. The Blunnie case was all the more tragic because there was a chance to prosecute Mr McLernon when he attempted to strangle Eystna two months before her death. Regrettably, the Crown Prosecution Service missed the opportunity to pursue the case. It has now rightly apologised for that unacceptable failing.
My hon. Friend also referred to the death of Claire Parrish, a mother of six brutally stabbed to death following a history of suffering abuse. She was a scared and vulnerable victim, again tragically let down by the agencies that should have been there to protect and support her. I want to reassure my hon. Friend and Members generally that I take such cases extremely seriously and I am determined that we all learn lessons from them, both inside Government and in the agencies involved that are on the front line to protect people.
I was pleased to see that the Essex police and crime commissioner, Nick Alston, has prioritised tackling domestic abuse in his police and crime plan. I was particularly encouraged to see his focus on learning lessons from Independent Police Complaints Commission investigations of the police handling of domestic abuse cases, and his plan to tackle domestic abuse through a multi-agency approach and the joint commissioning of victim services.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on some excellent examples of local services for victims of domestic abuse in west Essex, including the charity Safer Places, which offers accommodation and support to victims of abuse. I am also aware of the innovative Essex Change programme, which is an accredited programme that works with perpetrators of domestic violence to help them break the cycle of abuse. That is a very important aspect of our work.
The Government has supported a series of reforms to the handling of domestic violence by the police. The introduction of police and crime commissioners, the increased independence of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, and the establishment of the College of Policing are reforms that are working and, I think, are helping.
Police and crime commissioners provide an impetus for reform, innovate, and deliver policing more efficiently. They bring real local scrutiny of how chief constables and their forces perform. I am encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of police and crime commissioners across England and Wales have made tackling violence against women and girls a priority in their policing plans, and we are committed to ensuring that they have all the information that they need to make good decisions on how to deliver those priorities.
Specific training on domestic violence and abuse is included in the national police training curriculum. That training was updated this year to take account of the Government’s introduction of a new definition of domestic abuse. The new definition helps to prevent the escalation of abuse, which can end in tragedy, by dispelling the belief that domestic abuse begins and ends with violence. It places coercive control at the centre of determining whether abuse is taking place, and that is absolutely right. The College of Policing has committed to updating training on domestic abuse this year for its officers.
On top of that, the Home Secretary has commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to look at the performance of police forces across England and Wales in domestic abuse cases and identify where improvements need to be made. In just a few weeks’ time, it will publish its findings. The review will shine a light on police practice in each of the 43 forces. I am sure that my hon. Friend will read the report on Essex constabulary with particular interest. We will review the national recommendations with care and ensure that they are acted on as we strive for further improvements in this area.
Also of importance is the Government’s decision in April 2011 to place domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing. Now community safety partnerships produce a report for each domestic homicide review that they conduct, and each report is quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. Each review results in a tailored action plan that must be delivered by the area in question to make sure that we learn from each individual tragedy that occurs.
The Home Office has also published a document collating the national lessons learned from those reviews and making recommendations to local areas to drive improvements in practice. That, in particular, flagged up the critical importance of effective information sharing. I understand that a domestic homicide review has been conducted in the case of Eystna Blunnie and will be published by the local community safety partnership in the coming months, following close liaison with the family, as is right.
However, in order for a victim to access justice, it is important that a professional police force is complemented by well-trained prosecutors who progress as many domestic abuse cases as possible, so that unnecessary deaths are prevented. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently refreshing its domestic violence policy. I understand that a revised version will be published for consultation in the next few weeks. I also look forward to the outcome of work between the CPS and the police to join up training to ensure that victims of domestic abuse are provided with a consistent and collaborative response.
My hon. Friend also raised the importance of the training of front-line professionals. I welcome the recent publication by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, better known as NICE. That guidance has been published and is directed at commissioners and front-line professionals, including the NHS, the police and social services. The guidance provides information for multi-agency professionals dealing with domestic violence and abuse. It includes evidence-based interventions to be used as best practice by professionals to identify and support victims and their children, as well as enforce the law and respond to perpetrators.
It is vital that our criminal justice approach is reinforced by support services for victims. This Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services. Facilities funded with that money include 144 independent domestic violence advisers, who help victims of domestic violence get their voices heard, and 54 multi-agency risk assessment co-ordinators, who protect the interests of those who are most at risk by promoting information sharing. Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers.
However, we can and should do all we can nationally as well to reach out to those caught in cycles of abuse. The start of the national roll-out of Clare’s law, which my hon. Friend referred to, and of domestic violence protection orders is now just days away. Clare’s law, the domestic violence disclosure scheme, is a system in which anyone can seek disclosure of a partner’s violent past. Those with the legal right to know are provided with information that could well save lives, empowering them to make an informed choice about their futures.
Domestic violence protection orders offer respite to victims in the immediate aftermath of domestic abuse. Those orders have the power to prevent a perpetrator of domestic violence from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. That offers both the victim and the perpetrator the chance to reflect on the incident. It provides an important opportunity for the victim to determine the best course of action to end the cycle of abuse. Together, those two moves significantly improve the reality for victims.
I am also keen to do more to challenge cultural mindsets, which need to be changed to eradicate domestic abuse from our society. That is why the Home Office relaunched the “This is Abuse” campaign in December. It is particularly aimed at young people who think that violence can be okay, which is a point that my hon. Friend rightly referred to. It is aimed at stopping teenagers from becoming victims and perpetrators of abusive relationships by encouraging them to rethink their views on controlling behaviour and violence in their relationships.
We have also developed a “This is Abuse” discussion guide in partnership with voluntary sector experts, designed to help teachers, parents and youth workers lead discussions about abuse in teenage relationships. The guide has been quality assured by the Personal, Social, Health And Economic Education Association and is available to download on the gov.uk website. I welcome the work that the Department for Education is doing to establish a personal, social and health education subject expert group to ensure that teachers have the support and resources to deliver high-quality teaching and give the issues the same prominence as national curriculum subjects. The group will look at school-based programmes on domestic abuse and other key areas. I am committed to helping work with the DFE on those matters.
West Essex and Harlow have seen some extreme examples of appalling abusive behaviour in intimate relationships. The local area is to be commended for its efforts to learn lessons from individual tragedies and strive for improvements in the services offered to victims of domestic abuse. Through our violence against women and girls action plan, which will be updated and relaunched in a few days’ time, this Government has made significant strides towards a better reality for victims of domestic abuse.
We know that there is still much to do, and our refreshed action plan will capture that and outline the steps we will take to deliver further improvements. I look forward to working with local areas to ensure that actions identified by HMIC are driven forward. I will update Parliament, of course, on our continued progress in tackling domestic violence in the coming months, and I assure my hon. Friend and Parliament that this remains very much a priority for the Home Office, and for the Government as a whole.
Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)
I would like to thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the Minister for the sensitive manner in which they debated this important issue of domestic violence. We now move to the debate on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs inquiry centre closures. It is a pleasure to call Ian Lavery.
HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. This debate focuses on the Government’s proposals to close all HMRC inquiry centres in the UK. Inquiry centres provide a vital public service, allowing taxpayers to access free expert advice from highly skilled HMRC staff. In 2012, some 2.5 million people visited those offices, where they could take advantage of free phone and internet access, and 340,885 of those customers made a face-to-face appointment to get help complying with their tax duties and receive advice on their benefit entitlement.
Last month, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs announced that a “needs enhanced support” service model would be rolled out, resulting in the closure of all 281 HMRC offices by the end of June 2014. The taxpayers most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service as a result of the cost are the unemployed, those on low incomes such as migrant workers and pensioners, and child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Such taxpayers rely heavily on the free service currently provided by HMRC staff at inquiry centres.
The closures will also put the 1,300 jobs of those who work in the centres at risk as a result of compulsory redundancies. Staff in the offices are faced with an impossible decision about their future as the Department rushes to implement the closure of the offices in four short months.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
I apologise for coming in to the Chamber a few minutes late. My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. One of the offices affected is in Leicester, where a number of staff jobs are now at risk. Does he agree that the Government must put in the time to negotiate properly with the workplace unions, particularly the Public and Commercial Services Union, and do all they can to ensure that if they insist on closing the offices—although I hope they do not—the staff will be redeployed?
Ian Lavery
I fully agree, and I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that closing 280-odd offices—the service is provided up and down the country—will cause huge problems, mainly for people who are least well off but also, of course, for the staff themselves.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He will be aware that my constituency has an inquiry centre due for closure. I have been approached by constituents and members of PCS expressing concerns related to job losses and the impact that they could have on members of the public, particularly the most vulnerable. Does he agree that if the Government are serious about addressing the problem of underpaid and undercollected tax, the proposed closure programme is the wrong way to go about it?
Ian Lavery
I agree that the Government are going about it in entirely the wrong way. PCS, the union representing the HMRC workers, has agreed with HMRC that all members should have the opportunity for a formal one-to-one to help them consider their options. However, HMRC has withdrawn from that agreement in an attempt to pressure people into making decisions without information about applying for jobs and voluntary exits. That shows contempt for staff and puts huge pressure on people to leave by demoralising the work force.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
I have four constituents who work at the Aberystwyth office and who will be affected in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Before he moves on from customer service, does he agree that there are particular concerns about how the new service, in so far as it is a new service, will be delivered in rural areas? Access will be denied to many of our constituents by virtue of the fact that huge tracts, in my case of rural west Wales, will be covered by a diminished service, and arguably a more costly one.
Ian Lavery
I will certainly come to that later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
I am fairly positive that the Minister—perhaps he can indicate that this is the case—met PCS representatives this morning.
Ian Lavery
The Minister nods positively. I am pleased: perhaps he can assure me that support will be given to staff who are uncertain about their future and that compulsory redundancies will not be made.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We are all grateful that the Minister met the union, but let us be clear: he met the union only after this debate was announced. There has not been full transparency in the sharing of information with the union by management about the various options going forward. The Government introduce changes, but it is best to do so in a negotiated way rather than by imposing them, as this management seems to have done.
Ian Lavery
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for a positive intervention.
The pilot scheme has been rolled out not just in my constituency, but in my region—the north-east area. In June last year, 13 offices in the north-east of England were closed, including Royal Sovereign house in my constituency, in Morpeth. They were closed as part of a pilot of the new needs-enhanced support service model. If the closures of all 281 offices throughout the UK go as planned in June, I hope that HMRC does a better job of letting the public know than it did in our region last year.
I have heard examples of people travelling miles, only to find their local office no longer open to the public. In one prime example, an 85-year-old man used two buses to get to Scarborough, only to find the inquiry centre closed. Staff were actively prevented from assisting him: I repeat that they were actively prevented from assisting an 85-year-old gentleman. Another member of the public was trapped inside Gilbridge house in Sunderland, while trying to look for the inquiry centre, which had been closed. Many taxpayers decided to travel outside the region to inquiry centres that were still open, just so they could get face-to-face advice.
A recently widowed elderly woman turned up at Gilbridge house office for assistance with a tax form she needed to complete on behalf of her late husband. She told a member of HMRC staff that she simply did not feel that she could discuss her affairs over the phone, that she was afraid of completing it herself, just in case she did anything wrong, and that she could not grieve properly while she had this worry on her mind. I use this specific example, because staff are particularly concerned about the prospect of mainly older customers getting the support they need to complete the R27 form over the telephone, as these appointments need time. They not only need time; they need empathy, understanding and a common touch. It is common for staff, so they tell me, to keep a box of tissues handy on their desk for such occasions. It is hard to see how this kind of personal service can be replaced over the phone or on the internet. What assurances can the Minister give that such people, who will be in a particularly vulnerable state, will not be disadvantaged by the new service?
There are also problems involving equality issues. It is clear that the pilot scheme could not possibly identify the equality impacts on customers and staff, due to the demographics of our north-east region. For example, migrant workers make up 25% of all inquiry centre customers. However, the percentage of these customers is much lower in the north-east of England than it would be in other regions, such as London, which is a prime example. The consultation carried out by HMRC last year did not present equality data about customers. The document was not produced in different languages, which is of particular concern considering the high number of migrant workers who use the service. Only 11% of staff work part time in the north-east, compared with a national average of 36%. For example, 45% of workers in Wales and Scotland work part time. Only 7% of staff declared a disability in the north-east, compared with 27% based in Wales. Some 30% of inquiry centre staff in London and south-east are black, Asian and minority ethnic, compared with just 2% in the pilot area. How can the pilot area possibly identify the equality impact these closures will have on the country as a whole?
It is also worth mentioning, while considering the equality implications of this decision, that in October 2013 three appellants supported by the Low Incomes tax Reform Group won their appeal against the HMRC’s requirement that they must file their VAT returns online. A tax tribunal found that HMRC’s regulations that required online filing of VAT returns without providing exemptions for older people or disabled people, many of whom live in parts of the country that are too remote for broadband access, breached the appellants’ human rights and were unlawful in EU law.
If we consider the intervention of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), it is important that ordinary people can access those services. It does not matter whether those people live in London or in rural areas where access is extremely difficult. It was identified early in the pilot that a significant number of customers will not be able to call contact centres or interact with the website owing to the cost and low mobile or internet access in many parts of the UK. The taxpayers who are most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service owing to the cost are the most vulnerable members of society. They are not able to afford a landline or a mobile telephone, and even if they own a mobile telephone it is often on a pay-as-you-go facility with a minimum amount of credit reserved for emergency calls only. Those taxpayers include the unemployed, people on low incomes, migrant workers, pensioners, people on child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Those taxpayers rely heavily on the free service that is currently provided by our inquiry centre network because their tax queries are often complex.
Low earners, for example, often work in multiple jobs to provide for their family, which means that the tax code is often incorrect. They visit the HMRC inquiry centres to use the free phones and free internet facilities or to receive face-to-face support and advice. HMRC agreed that an alternative access solution needed to be found if the new model was to be rolled out nationally. It is therefore concerning that the decision to move to the new service model and to close the inquiry centres has been made despite HMRC not having found those solutions.
Can the Minister reassure me that solutions have been found? If not, why has a decision been made without the Department having been able to resolve those important issues? Even in areas that have decent mobile phone coverage, taxpayers need to be reassured that contact centres will be sufficiently staffed to handle their calls. If the closures go ahead, people will no longer be able to walk into their local inquiry centre and receive face-to-face assistance on tax issues that are often complex. Instead, they will have to call a contact centre. A member of staff will then vet them and determine whether to refer them to another adviser. Only if that two-tier adviser deems it appropriate will a taxpayer classed as needing enhanced support be given access to face-to-face advice. Call handling levels have consistently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. There are figures that prove conclusively that people will find it extremely difficult to contact the centres.
The fact that we are removing HMRC offices from local communities is one of the most important issues. HMRC is effectively moving its presence away from people who are supposed to pay, which will make closing the tax gap even harder. It will make tax compliance more difficult, both for those who want to comply but cannot get access to the information they need and for those who intentionally want to slip under the radar because they are disengaged with the tax authority at a local level. Those concerns have been raised by a large number of stakeholders in the public consultation exercise, including by the Association of Taxation Technicians, Citizens Advice, Gingerbread, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Lancaster city council, Milton Keynes council, TaxAid and a number of individual taxpayers. What work has HMRC done to estimate the amount of money that could be lost in uncollected tax owing to large numbers of taxpayers being prevented from engaging with the Department?
I conclude simply by asking the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the offices. There is a real danger that if the plans go ahead, some of the most vulnerable people in society will lose their access to HMRC’s services. Hundreds of quality jobs will be lost, and the Government’s attempts to tackle the tax gap will be seriously set back. It would surely benefit society and the economy if the Government would concentrate on closing the tax gap, not tax offices.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on securing this debate and putting across his points with characteristic clarity and force. Although I can understand his and other Members’ concerns about the new HMRC service, particularly the plans to close its network of inquiry centres, I hope to provide reassurance that the changes will in fact provide better support to customers who require extra help to get their taxes and payments right. I want to focus on three areas: the impact on HMRC staff, whether there will be continued provision of face-to-face service and what the changes will really mean for those who currently use the inquiry centres.
First, let me begin, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck did, with the impact of the proposals on existing HMRC staff. Members will be aware that HMRC has recently written to all MPs about the introduction of the new service. That letter includes confirmation, which I would like to stress again today, that the plans are no reflection on the dedication and commitment of the 1,300 staff working in the inquiry centres. It is simply the case that HMRC can better support customers if it uses its money and staff in other ways.
Since the original consultation on the proposed new service began last year, HMRC has been discussing the impact of the changes with staff in inquiry centres and trade unions. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck pointed out, I met PCS representatives this morning to discuss the changes. Staff have been advised of the options and support available to them, dependent on their personal circumstances. The options include opportunities to apply for one of 450 roles in the new service.
A voluntary exit scheme has been opened for inquiry centre staff who wish to leave the Department on favourable terms, and HMRC has good reason to expect that a significant number will take the option to leave and pursue their futures elsewhere. HMRC will also, of course, do everything possible to redeploy as many staff as possible within HMRC or to help them to find other roles within the civil service. For those who go into the redeployment pool, the offer of a one-to-one meeting is still in place—it has certainly not been withdrawn.
It is worth bearing in mind HMRC’s history as an employer. It has reduced in size significantly over the past nine years, but there have been only 35 compulsory redundancies. Although I cannot provide any guarantees that there will be no such redundancies, HMRC’s record in avoiding such eventualities is strong.
Secondly, I would like to address the concerns of those who have suggested that the closure of the inquiry centres marks the end of HMRC’s dedicated face-to-face advisory service. Let me reassure them that that is definitely not the case. A face-to-face service is about people; it is not about bricks and mortar. What is important is that HMRC provides an accessible and flexible face-to-face service that meets the needs of customers. Such a service is at the heart of the new system, which will provide face-to-face meetings where that is most convenient to customers. Today’s customers increasingly want to access services online, by phone and face to face when they need them. That is what the new service will focus on providing.
Grahame M. Morris
I apologise for being late; I have been tied up in a Committee. The Minister mentions the responsibility to maintain customer services. Does he feel that it is sufficient merely to put posters in the windows of the offices that have closed? Is that sufficient notice to give the public, particularly when the feedback from the pilots was that that was not an effective method of communicating with the public?
Mr Gauke
It is important that HMRC communicates the closure of inquiry centres. It has written to all Members of Parliament on the matter and will take other steps to ensure that our constituents are aware of the changes.
Inquiry centres are not universally distributed across the country, and large parts of the UK are not even served by them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who is no longer in his place, raised the position of rural areas. Rural areas do not tend to be well served by inquiry centres at present. There has been a sharp decline in the use of inquiry centres. Visitor numbers have halved from more than 5 million in 2005-06 to just over 2 million in 2012-13, and the number of face-to-face appointments also dropped by four fifths to 140,000 last year.
Ian Lavery
Is it not the case that individuals who wish to have a face-to-face meeting will be vetted on the telephone, and then someone will adjudicate whether they need one?
Mr Gauke
I will turn to how the new service will work in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. HMRC’s in-depth research further revealed that nine out of 10 of those who visited an inquiry centre last year did not require a face-to-face appointment and would have been able to resolve their queries through a phone call or by visiting the HMRC website.
Ian Lavery
Where on earth did that information come from? Surely, people who wanted a face-to-face meeting had one and thought it beneficial. Where do the statistics that the Minister has just mentioned come from?
Mr Gauke
They are the result of research undertaken by HMRC. Matters can often be resolved over the telephone rather than in a face-to-face meeting. The hon. Gentleman rightly highlighted a case in which an 85-year-old gentleman caught two buses to attend an inquiry centre. If it is possible to drive that service more easily over the telephone, so be it, but there are circumstances in which a face-to-face meeting will be appropriate, so that will be provided.
HMRC’s research has highlighted that up to 1.5 million customers need extra help with their tax and benefits affairs. Many of them need help only for a specific event in their lives, such as when they approach retirement. Others may have low literacy skills, or a mental health condition may make it difficult for them to cope with their affairs. The new, more accessible service will be tailored to the needs of customers who require extra help. Specialist help will be provided over the telephone by extra support advisers who have the time, skills, knowledge and empathy to handle customers’ inquiries at a pace that suits them, and who can identify when a customer needs extra help. If a customer’s query cannot be dealt with over the phone, they can arrange a face-to-face meeting with a team of mobile advisers based across the United Kingdom. Such meetings can be arranged at a time and place convenient to the customer, and extra help will be delivered through HMRC’s voluntary and community sector partners who have been provided with extra funding so that they can support more customers and refer them directly to the new service.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister says that the service will be more accessible, but can he guarantee that? More than 280 offices will be closed. It is very difficult for the ordinary man and woman in the street to see how the service will be more accessible than it is now. I am sure that he will use the phrase, “Taking the service to the people, rather than people coming to bricks and mortar.” The advantage of bricks and mortar is that it cannot be closed down or moved. Services that go into the community can disappear: lorries, vans or whatever vehicles are used for mobile services can disappear.
Mr Gauke
The point I was making is that, yes, 281 inquiry centres are being closed, but there will be something like 350 venues that will be used for face-to-face meetings under the new regime. HMRC fully acknowledges that there is a need to deal with those people who require enhanced support and face-to-face meetings. It has been clear about that.
John McDonnell
The problem with call centres is that in order to secure a face-to-face meeting, someone has to get through on the phone. At the moment, the Public Accounts Committee has set HMRC a performance target of 90% of calls for 2013-14, but performance, as at December 2013, was 76.2%. So HMRC is significantly failing its existing call centre targets already.
Mr Gauke
It is worth making the point that HMRC has recently gone through one of the biggest peaks for telephone calls during the year, which is the self-assessment deadline at the end of January, and it met the 90% target even on the last day of January, so there is some progress in terms of HMRC’s contact centre performance.
In the time that I have available, I will turn to the consultation and pilots. As many hon. Members will be aware, in developing and refining the new service, HMRC undertook a wide-ranging consultation on its proposals last year. It also piloted the new service in the north-east of England from June to December 2013, closing 13 inquiry centres including, as we have heard, the Morpeth inquiry centre in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so as to run the live trial. Feedback from customers and staff has helped to shape the service that will now be rolled out nationally, which includes introducing alternative routes for deaf, hard-of-hearing and speech-impaired customers to contact HMRC online, and making it easier for a friend or family member to contact HMRC on behalf of a customer to arrange a face-to-face appointment.
Customers who have used the new service have liked it. Independent research has shown that the new service has delivered an improved service for customers who need extra help, compared with their previous experiences with HMRC. Some calls, particularly those about tax credits, can also be handled effectively by HMRC’s contact centre advisers. I know that concerns have been raised about the ability of contact centres to cope with the increased demand, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said. However, as I have said, even in the self-assessment tax return peak in January, HMRC handled almost nine out of 10 calls first time.
I conclude by reassuring hon. Members that HMRC is making these changes for two main reasons: first, to better meet the needs of those 1.5 million customers who need more help with their tax and benefits; and, secondly, to ensure that the services it provides represent the best value for money for taxpayers. Many inquiry centre staff will have the opportunity to apply for roles in the new service; many others will choose to leave HMRC through a voluntary exit scheme, or will seek redeployment to other roles within HMRC or in other Government Departments. In short, HMRC is doing the right thing for its customers and for the country, and as a responsible employer it is treating its staff with consideration and respect as it implements this important new service.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Competitiveness Council
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Universities and Science (Mr David Willetts)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for Trade and Investment has made the following statement:
The EU Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 20 and 21 February 2014. The UK was represented by Lord Livingston on day one (industry and internal market) and David Willetts on day two (research and space). A summary of those discussions follows.
The main internal market and industry issues discussed were industrial competitiveness and the annual growth survey.
The Council began with a discussion about industrial competitiveness. Member states were asked to outline their priorities for improving industrial competitiveness, achieving a balance between climate, energy and competitiveness policies and how to mainstream industrial competitiveness into all policy areas. In its presentation, the Commission outlined its overall approach, noting that: all policy proposals should be competitiveness proofed; support should be given to innovative SMEs; and Competitiveness Council should play a greater role on industrial policy. The Commission also reiterated its proposed target to boost industry’s share of EU GDP to 20%. The UK called for: the EU to focus on creating the right single market conditions; reduced burdens; a strong state aid regime; free trade agreements; a cost-effective and flexible energy and climate framework; a reformed emissions trading system; robust action to prevent carbon leakage; and a single energy market. The UK also emphasised that the EU should not be distracted by artificial targets on industrialisation.
This was followed by a discussion regarding the annual growth survey. The Commission noted the progress many member states had made on their country specific recommendations, but argued that too many service sector barriers remained. Key sectors where action should be taken included business and professional services, construction and retail. The UK emphasised the need to fully implement the services directive, called on the Commission to urgently provide guidance on proportionality, and suggested following a sectoral approach for further services liberalisation—for example, professional business services.
Eight AOB points were discussed: the ninth ministerial meeting of the Union for the Mediterranean on Euro-Mediterranean industrial co-operation; the European tourism quality principles; the European strategy for costal and maritime tourism; state aid modernisation; hybrid nutrition labelling; non-financial and diversity information and the statute for a European foundation.
Research and space issues were covered on 21 February. During research discussions, the Commission noted that many member states were cutting their research budgets due to the overriding driver of fiscal consolidation—a careful balance had to be found or this would risk damaging their research and development capacity and the knowledge economy.
References were made to the importance of linking research agendas—both national and Horizon 2020—to structural fund spending. Germany and the UK warned of the risks of unhelpful regulation at European level, with the UK highlighting that the precautionary principle needed to be revisited and that “gold” open access to publications should be the norm in Europe.
On the European research area Council conclusions, the Commission clarified that the European research area was complete at a European level, but this now needed to be complemented by member states’ action to implement the policies identified.
On the AOB items on public-public research partnerships and public-private research partnerships the presidency updated on the recent negotiations with the European Parliament. On the AOB item on international co-operation, the Commission welcomed the renewal of the science and technology agreement.
On the space policy debate on relations between the European Union and the European Space Agency, the presidency highlighted that both organisations were analysing similar policy options: to do nothing, have closer collaboration on policies and space missions, to have a dedicated directorate in the European Space Agency operating in accordance with EU rules on procurement, or to disband the European Space Agency and establish a new agency within the EU with similar functions. The majority of member states including the UK expressed a preference to undertake further consideration of the middle two options although the UK noted that the concepts still needed further definition and that the case for new EU legislation to implement them had not been made.
There was widespread consensus that both organisations needed to respect each other’s expertise more and become more pragmatic in their relationship. The UK proposed that there should be a joint ESA/EU “Space Council” at the end of the year to discuss which approach to take.
Prison Service Pay Review Body
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord Faulks, has made the following written ministerial statement:
I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Prison Service Pay Review Body. Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.
Section 127 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 prohibits the inducement of operational staff within the prison service to take industrial action. As a “compensatory mechanism” for their inability lawfully to take such action, the Prison Service Pay Review Body provides advice to the Secretary of State about the pay of those staff.
The review will be conducted in accordance with Government guidance for reviewing non-departmental public bodies, and will focus on the core questions of effectiveness and good governance. It will be carried out in an open and transparent way, and interested stakeholders will be given the opportunity to feed in their views. I shall announce the findings of the review in due course.
House of Lords
Japan: Dolphins
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Japan about the practice of capturing and slaughtering dolphins in Taiji.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, my honourable friend George Eustice, the Minister responsible, wrote to the Japanese Fisheries Minister on 9 February to reiterate our opposition to hunting all cetaceans, except for limited activities by indigenous people for defined subsistence needs. Our ambassador had written to the Japanese Foreign Affairs Minister on 24 January to set out our position. The Japanese Government are in no doubt as to the strength of feeling here, nor about our policy against these hunts.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Are the Government seeking to co-operate with other countries and civil society organisations to evaluate what measures can be taken using international conventions to which we are signatories, in order to end the unnecessary suffering of this trade?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I agree strongly with my noble friend that working within international agreements such as CMS and CITES, and with the IWC, is the way to achieve our conservation goals. We already work closely with other like-minded Governments and civil society organisations, including on whale and dolphin conservation, in these fora and we continue to press for enhanced co-ordination and communication between them to ensure that they co-operate to provide an effective and long-term framework for the protection of cetaceans globally.
Lord Eden of Winton (Con)
Has my noble friend had any response at all from the Japanese Government about this issue? Is there any indication on their part that they understand the strength of feeling and will now do something to stop this practice?
Lord De Mauley
It is premature to say that they are moving in the direction of stopping it, to be frank. This is something that we must and will continue to pursue.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Australians have for many years been concerned by the fact that the Japanese use a loophole to argue that they do this hunting for scientific research? Can anything be done about that?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we regularly call for Japan to cease its so-called “scientific” whaling programme, as we consider there to be no valid argument for lethal scientific research on whales. As such, we therefore agree with Australian efforts to bring an end to these activities through the ICJ, and we look forward to the judgment in that case, which we expect this year.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other European Governments to ensure that dolphins trapped in this hunt and sold for entertainment do not find their way into European aquariums?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the issue is indeed of concern to a number of EU member states, and was discussed at the EU CITES management meeting in December. We continue to consider what measures the EU can take. For example, parties to CITES can place a reservation on a species, which means that they are not bound by the CITES controls relating to that species. We will, through the EU, continue to encourage countries such as Japan and others to withdraw their reservations on, for example, whale species.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, are the Government co-operating with the various animal welfare societies in this country, which feel very strongly about this, not least the Japan Animal Welfare Society, of which I have the honour to be patron?
Lord De Mauley
I pay tribute to my noble friend for all the work she does for animal welfare. I agree with her that the pressure which animal welfare organisations can bring to bear in situations such as these is often more effective, frankly, than that of Governments.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend’s department keep records of the degree of pressure it receives in the context of different animal species or other species from within our own society, in line with what my noble friend Lady Fookes has just asked him, so that it has some idea of what is the scale of the pressure from within our own society?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords, the pressure is maintained, consistent and considerable.
Welfare: Cost of Family Breakdown
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Chester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the cost of family and relationship breakdown to the welfare budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I am unable to give an official figure. A number of organisations have produced estimates—for example, the Relationships Foundation, at £45 billion-odd—but there is no consensus. The social security spend on lone parents and collecting child maintenance is just under £9 billion, but we must acknowledge that there are wider societal costs. Government have an important role to play in supporting families and working to ensure stable futures for children.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, if the figure of £45 billion or £46 billion given by the Relationships Foundation is even remotely accurate, that illustrates the cost of family and relational breakdown, which cashes out at about £1,500 each year for each taxpayer in our country. What more do the Government propose to do to support and strengthen family life and relationships in our country, which must somewhere include supporting the institution of marriage?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the Government place the importance of sustaining relationships and families high up on their agenda and have a number of programmes to encourage that, which include extending childcare, tax-free childcare, and flexible working for both parents. We have worked on support for relationships and for parenting and have introduced a marriage tax break. We are looking at this whole area in our family stability review, which will be published later this year.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to turn the Question around and ask the Minister of his estimate of the cost to family relationships of cuts to social security, which are forcing some families to move, breaking up their family and social relationships, and of the cost to them of ever increasing punitive sanctions, which are driving more and more families to food banks. Both these trends are leaving families under more and more stress, leading, potentially, to the break-up of relationships.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the issue of food banks raised by the noble Baroness, which we have discussed several times in this House, clearly nobody goes to a food bank willingly. However, it is very hard to know why people go to them. The Defra report said that there was a lack of systematic peer-reviewed research from the UK on the reasons or immediate circumstances that lead people to turn to food aid.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Is the Minister aware that cohabiting relationships form a disproportionate amount of the relationships that break down and that cohabiting parents are three times as likely to split by the time their child is aged five as are married couples? Will the Government therefore refrain from further normalising or approving cohabiting relationships as a form of parenthood?
Lord Freud
There was a very substantial long-term jump in the number of cohabiting relationships. It went up over the last Government from more than 600,000 to 1.1 million. It is somewhat flattening now; it currently stands at 1.2 million. The noble Baroness is right in that the actual figure is that those couples are four times more likely to split when their child is under three than if they are married. However, there are some structural and major societal changes behind those trends, and it will take an enormous amount of effort to start putting marriage back into its rightful place. That is exactly one of the things that we are looking to do with the family stability review.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have a breakdown of the amount of funding that the Government give to those charities that help families in difficulty to prevent the partnership breaking down? Can he say whether there is a role for the Family Nurse Partnership in helping families stay together?
Lord Freud
We are running two immediate programmes. The first is to provide help and support for separated families, running in SR10 at £14 million, £10 million of which is spent on an innovation fund that tests various interventions, involving 17 different voluntary and private groups. The other aspect is the relationship support interventions, on which we are spending £30 million. There are three main areas—something called Let’s Stick Together, marriage preparation and couples counselling.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I would like to return to the answer that the Minister gave my noble friend Lady Lister. If the Minister does not know why people go to food banks, I commend to him the “Panorama” programme shown on television last night about food banks. Among other people, they interviewed a mother who described the fact that her benefits had been wrongly sanctioned for three months and that they had so little to eat that her milk dried up while breastfeeding.
I have two questions for the Minister. First what is the current success rate of appeals against sanctions on benefits? Secondly, what does he make of the pictures shown in the “Panorama” programme last night of the jobcentre that put up charts to show its staff how much money could be saved to the department by sanctioning people for a range of times?
Lord Freud
I must emphasise to noble Lords that we absolutely do not have targets for sanctioning. We have looked into this matter, and we do not have them—we do not run them. When there are exceptions, we stop it. That is not the purpose of sanctions; the purpose of sanctions is to run a system in which we provide some £85 billion to people who need it. It is our safety net to make sure that we give that properly and that people comply with the conditions required to receive that money.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to inform the House why, in his opinion, the Government of whom I was a member were responsible in some way for the increase in cohabitation? Would he be prepared to point out that many cohabiting couples make very good parents to their children?
Lord Freud
There seems to be a difference between the two sides of the House on the importance of marriage. This side believes that marriage is a valuable institution and we are going to support it with a marriage tax break.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the Government are increasing the work they are doing with the country’s most troubled families, getting some of those families into work for the first time in generations. What does my noble friend the Minister expect that to do for family stability?
Lord Freud
My Lords, it is vital that people get into work where they can. That is the only way to solve poverty in the long term. We have managed to get more families into work—under this Government, 300,000 more have gone into work. I should also point out that fewer families with children are in poverty under this Government. That figure has gone down by 100,000 since we came in.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lady Sherlock, the noble Lord was unequivocal that the Government do not have targets on sanctions. Will he, therefore, instruct government offices which have charts on their walls, such as my noble friend Lady Sherlock described in asking her question, to take them down?
Lord Freud
If it is established that there are charts of that nature, I will instruct them to be taken down.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to answer the other question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the rate of successful appeals against sanctions?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Lord; I do not have that figure at my fingertips.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what contribution do the Government make to the work of Relate and similar organisations?
Lord Freud
We support a number of charities supporting marriage. I do not think that I have to hand the exact level of that support in monetary terms. However, the figure is available and I shall write to the noble Lord to provide it.
Intelligence and Security Committee
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes they propose regarding arrangements for choosing the members and chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, following the commencement of the Justice and Security Act 2013.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, Section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 makes provision for the changes to the arrangements for appointing members of the ISC, to which the noble Lord refers. It provides that members of the ISC will,
“be appointed by the House of Parliament from which the member is to be drawn”,
and that the chair of the ISC will be chosen by its members from among its members. Until this Act came into effect, members and the chair were appointed by the Prime Minister.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the idea of making the ISC a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was to improve its independence and effectiveness? Surely, this is compromised with a former Conservative Foreign Secretary in the chair, only three Labour MPs and no Labour Peers in its membership. Therefore, will the Government enter into discussions with the Official Opposition to ensure that we get a better balance on the committee, including Labour Peers and an opposition chair, so that it can obtain some degree of credibility?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am conscious that for some time the only Member of this House on the Intelligence and Security Committee was indeed the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and then it expanded to two. There is no reference in the Justice and Security Act to the division of the current nine members between the two Houses. Noble Lords will be aware that yesterday Yvette Cooper made a speech on further reforms and that this morning the Deputy Prime Minister made a speech in which he suggested that we should move from the current nine members to a future membership of 11, as with other Select Committees. However, he made no specific reference to the division between the two Houses.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Would not greater accountability to the ISC and Parliament be provided if the chairman of the ISC was given unrestricted access to all operational material in the agencies, with the safeguard that, where such information exceeds what is currently permissible within the law, it is provided to the wider membership of the ISC committee by the chairman only with the permission of the agency chiefs concerned? That would really increase accountability to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, there were a number of questions about increasing the capacity of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as on previous occasions, mentioned the thinness of the staff assisting the committee. That is now being strengthened. In both Ms Cooper’s speech yesterday and the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech this morning, the suggestion was made to strengthen further the size and capabilities of the staff. The question of whether the chair should be drawn from the governing party or one of the opposition parties is also out there in the open. There is nothing in the Act that says whether the chair of the committee should be a member of one party or another.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, the Americans have been vigorously debating surveillance and the internet for more than six months. Yesterday the shadow Home Secretary joined in, and today the Deputy Prime Minister made an excellent contribution. When will the Home Office and the Foreign Office abandon their pretence that all is well and that there is nothing to discuss?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Justice and Security Act is less than a year old and was a useful step forward. I am conscious that the Snowden leaks, so to speak, and all the other questions about just how wide the collection of information by intelligence agencies across the world is, have stimulated a further debate. I have no doubt that that debate will continue, including within this House.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes asked what changes the Government propose. Do they propose any changes in relation to this matter or are they still waiting?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we have only just commenced and set into effect the Justice and Security Act. The first public meeting of the Intelligence and Security Committee under the Act took place some three months ago, so we are still discussing the next stage. That is not particularly dilatory, given that we are moving in the right direction. We are looking at the current revelations about the sheer scale of internet surveillance, which perhaps raise further issues for discussion.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that however the chairman is chosen, and from whichever party he might come, it would be very difficult to find a chairman better qualified and with more credibility and authority than Sir Malcolm Rifkind?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I have to preface my remarks by saying that I speak as a member of a party that values marriage but also values all stable relationships.
Sir David Omand, the former director of GCHQ, has said that,
“staff in the intelligence agencies would welcome deeper but more informed oversight, not least to protect their reputation”.
Notwithstanding the new Act, it is clear that in this digital age the pace of technological change is so rapid that I am sure the noble Lord would agree that the ISC should be strengthened further in terms of digital and technological expertise. What plans might there be for those to be strengthened in the current circumstances?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is the question of the size, scale and expertise of the staff of the committee. The 2011 Green Paper raised the question of whether the current two commissioners, the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner, might be combined into one and given rather greater authority. What we are discovering about the speed of change with the internet—not just the hoovering up of information on the internet by government agencies but the whole question of the hoovering up of our personal information by private agencies—is an issue that we all clearly need to discuss further. The Government have been developing a draft communications data Bill on which we will all have to consider how we move forward, probably in the first Session of the next Parliament.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I make it clear to the House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that I was in no way impugning the personal integrity of Malcolm Rifkind, who is a long-standing personal friend of mine, but stating the principle of having an opposition chair for such an important committee, as we have for the Public Accounts Committee.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are all quite clear that this is also partly a question of transparency, accountability and public trust, and greater transparency would help to improve public trust.
Schools: Academies
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the decision to remove 10 academies from the E-ACT Academy chain, what action they are taking to ensure that other chains are managing schools satisfactorily.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, within the Department for Education we have a very tough process of performance management for academy chains. The vast majority are sponsored academies—that is, schools which have in most cases previously been allowed to languish in failure for years. Sponsored academies are now improving at double the rate of local authority-maintained schools. In the small number of cases where an academy is not performing well, we hold the trust to account and challenge it to take decisive action. We have a zero-tolerance approach to failure. Since 2011, we have issued 41 pre-warning notices to underperforming academies and these have proved highly effective.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, the question here is not individual academies but chains that have been allowed to take over very large numbers of schools. In fact, it is reported that E-ACT, the subject of my Question, has now lost control of 10 of its 34 schools—a third—after damning Ofsted inspections of those schools. Over the weekend, we heard that another big chain has claimed £1 million for so-called ghost pupils. Has not the Secretary of State been reckless in allowing big business to take over such large numbers of our schools without any continuing oversight of its ability to do so? Will he now agree with us, with Ofsted and apparently also with his Schools Minister, David Laws, that to protect the interests of children, parents and teachers, Ofsted should be allowed to inspect not just the schools but these very big sponsoring chains?
Lord Nash
E-ACT was undoubtedly overambitious. It took on a lot of schools which were failing and in very challenging situations. Personally, I think that big business being involved in the academy programme is an excellent idea, and it was of course the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who introduced this. As I said, this programme, which we are extending, is working extremely well, and we have extremely rigorous oversight of academy chains. We welcome Ofsted’s batch inspection of schools in academy chains and the support that it gets from those chains. However, Ofsted has a lot to do and, given the very tight grip that we have on the central management of these chains, we do not think that it is necessary for it to go any further than that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that academy chains are always catching up with some of the smallest local authorities in terms of the number of schools for which they are responsible. Local authorities’ children’s services and school improvements are inspected. Why does the Minister think that academy chains should not be inspected as chains?
Lord Nash
I think I have just said that I believe that the department has a very tight grip on the central management of academy chains, which, as I said, are performing extremely well by and large. That is not the case with local authorities, among which there are many unfortunate failures. Nearly 400 local authority schools are in special measures and 30 have been in special measures for 18 months. As my noble friend knows, a number of local authorities have, according to Ofsted, been performing particularly poorly.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a benefit that schools can work in partnership, whether through chains or other means? Can we look back at the London Challenge and the Greater Manchester Challenge to see what more can be done to help schools to work together in partnership, particularly with outstanding heads mentoring other heads?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Earl. The school-to-school support model, which you could say was pioneered by the London Challenge, started by the previous Government, is one that we favour over other models. That is why we focus all academy groupings on a local and regional cluster basis, whether or not they are part of chains. We think that school-to-school support is the way forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given the enormous success that the academies have achieved in turning round schools and offering opportunities to youngsters, why does the Minister think that we have so many Questions from the party opposite sniping at these very considerable successes?
Lord Nash
I think that I have in the past alluded to the fact—without wishing to rise to the challenge too much—that for many years many schools in this country have undoubtedly been allowed years to languish in failure. We now have many successful chains, such as ARK, Harris, Outwood Grange, REAch2, Greenwood Dale, Aldridge and Perry Beeches, which are turning round inner-city schools that were previously just written off. Some of their performance statistics are really quite miraculous.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I should like to return to the issue of inspection. In as much as the multichain bodies are involved in the governance of all the academies in their chain, and Ofsted inspects governance, why does Ofsted not also inspect the chains themselves?
Lord Nash
Ofsted looks at the support that chains are giving to their schools, and we have a very tight grip on the governance of all the chains. We have been in discussions with 50 chains to strengthen their governance arrangements and have a network of non-executive directors whom we have been introducing to chains to support them.
Lord Dykes (LD)
To restore public confidence, should not these institutions be genuine, single, self-standing schools without these rather dodgy business connections where chains are using taxpayers’ money which may not be properly audited?
Lord Nash
It is absolutely clear that anyone in any sort of governance arrangement with an academy or an academy chain cannot profit from their engagement. Any services provided from the connected party must be provided at no more than cost, and many of those philanthropists provide those services at considerably less than cost.
Transport for London Bill [HL]
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Bill [HL]
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, as I ask your Lordships to pass this Bill, perhaps I may express my warm thanks to your Lordships for your support and to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and his officials at the Home Office for their help and assistance. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
International Development (Gender Equality) Bill
Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Bill
Ukraine
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary earlier today in the other place.
“With permission, I will make a Statement on the situation in Ukraine. The House will recall from my Statement last Monday that, on Friday 21 February, former President Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine signed an agreement to end months of violence. Shortly afterwards, the President fled Kiev, the 2004 constitution was restored, early presidential elections were called for 25 May, and an interim Government were appointed.
Last Wednesday, President Putin ordered military exercises involving a stated 38,000 Russian troops near the border with Ukraine, which they now appear to have concluded. By Friday, unidentified armed men had appeared outside airports and government buildings in Crimea. On Saturday, President Putin sought and received the approval of the upper House of the Russian Parliament to use Russian armed forces anywhere on the territory of Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainian Government, citing a,
‘threat to the lives of Russian citizens’.
Russian forces in Crimea went on to take control of Ukrainian military sites, including in Belbek, Balaclava and Kerch, and to establish full operational control in the Crimea. Helicopters and planes have been deployed. The Russian Government have not ruled out military action in other parts of Ukraine. Indeed, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence has reported Russian fighters infringing Ukrainian airspace over the Black Sea.
Her Majesty’s Government condemn any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, which contravenes Russia’s obligations under the UN charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act and the 1997 partition treaty on the status and conditions of the Black Sea fleet with Ukraine. Under that agreement, Russia is entitled to station troops and naval personnel on its bases in Crimea, but not to deploy troops outside those bases without the permission of the Ukrainian Government.
Moreover, Russia’s actions are in breach of the Budapest memorandum, signed in 1994. In return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, Russia joined the UK and US in reaffirming their obligation to,
‘refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’.
The Russian Government have argued that there is no legitimate Government in Kiev, but the incumbent Ukrainian President abandoned his post and the subsequent decisions of the Ukrainian Parliament have been carried by large majorities, required under the constitution, including from members of the former President’s party, the Party of Regions. The suggestion that a President who has fled his country has any authority whatever to invite the forces of a neighbouring country into that country is baseless.
Russia has also argued that Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine are in danger, but no evidence of that threat has been presented. Furthermore, international diplomatic mechanisms exist to provide assurance on the situations of national minorities, including within the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe. These mechanisms are the way to secure assurances of protection of the rights of minorities, not the breaking of international agreements and the use of armed force.
I commend the Ukrainian Government for responding to this extreme situation with a refusal to be provoked. The Ukrainian armed forces have been placed on full combat readiness, but the Government have affirmed that they will not use force, and I have urged them to maintain this position. However, there is clearly a grave risk of escalation or miscalculation, and a threat to hard-won peace and security in Europe.
The Government have been in constant contact with the Government of Ukraine, with the United States, with our partners in the European Union and our allies in NATO and the G7, and indeed with the Russian Government themselves. Our objectives are, first, to avoid any further military escalation, and instead to see Russia return its forces to their bases and respect Ukrainian sovereignty; secondly, for any concerns about Russian-speaking minorities in Ukraine to be addressed by means of negotiations, not force; and, thirdly, for the international community to provide Ukraine, provided it is ready to carry out vital reforms, with urgent economic assistance. I will take each of these areas in turn.
First, we and our allies have condemned Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine and warned against any further escalation. The Prime Minister has spoken twice to President Obama, and I have been in daily contact with my counterparts in the European Union, NATO and the G7. We have made firm representations to Russia. The Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on Friday and I spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov on Saturday, when the Russian ambassador to London was also summoned to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We have urged Russia to meet its international commitments and choose a path out of confrontation and military action.
At our request, the UN Security Council held an urgent meeting on Sunday. Members of the council called for international monitors to be sent to Ukraine to observe the situation and stressed the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the need to lower tensions. NATO’s North Atlantic Council met on Sunday and called for Russia to withdraw its troops to bases and to refrain from any further provocative actions in Ukraine, in line with its international commitments. The NATO-Ukraine Commission was also convened.
Yesterday, at the Foreign Affairs Council, European nations strongly condemned Russia’s act of aggression, called on Russia immediately to withdraw its forces to the areas of their permanent stationing, and without delay to agree to the request by Ukraine for direct consultations with Russia as well as under the Budapest memorandum. The council stated that, in the absence of de-escalating steps by Russia, the EU will decide about consequences for relations between the EU and Russia, such as suspending bilateral talks with Russia on visa matters and considering targeted measures. Heads of Government will now meet at a European Council on Thursday. As the Prime Minister and President Obama have said, there must be a significant cost to Russia if it does not change course on Ukraine.
EU member states have reconfirmed the offer of an association agreement with Ukraine, including a deep and comprehensive free trade area, and confirmed our commitment to support an international assistance package to support Ukraine, based on a clear commitment to reforms. The council also agreed to work on the adoption of restrictive measures for the freezing and recovery of misappropriated Ukrainian assets.
In terms of immediate steps to respond to Russia’s actions and acting in concert with the G7, we have withdrawn the UK from preparations this week for the G8 summit in June in Sochi. We will also not send any UK government representatives to the Paralympic Games beginning this week, while maintaining our full support for the British athletes taking part.
Secondly, we are urging direct contact between the Ukrainian and Russian Governments. We are willing to pursue any diplomatic avenue that could help to reduce tensions, so we have called for urgent consultations under the Budapest memorandum, or the creation of a contact group including Russia and Ukraine. We urge Russia to accept the invitation to attend talks under the Budapest memorandum in Paris tomorrow, which I will attend. The UK supports the powerful case for the deployment of UN and OSCE monitors to Crimea and other areas of concern in Ukraine given the grave risk of clashes and escalation on the ground. We are taking part in urgent consultations in Vienna. We welcome the Ukrainian Government’s support for such deployments and call on Russia to follow suit. The Prime Minister and I have both spoken to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to urge him to use the authority of the UN to bring about direct contact between Russia and Ukraine, and to urge the peaceful resolution of this issue. I welcome the fact that the Deputy Secretary-General is in Ukraine today.
Thirdly, we are working to support the Ukraine Government, who are facing immense political and economic challenges on top of the invasion of their territory. I returned from Kiev yesterday, where I encouraged Ukraine’s leaders to make a decisive break with the country’s past history of pervasive corruption, failed IMF programmes and poor governance. I urged acting President Turchynov and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to continue to take measures which unify the country and protect the rights of all Ukraine’s citizens, including its minority groups. I welcome the steps that have been taken, including the appointment of new regional governors in Russian-speaking regions, and the veto of recent proposed legislation affecting the status of the Russian language.
In return for urgent commitments and reform, it is vital that Ukraine receives international financial and technical assistance. The IMF should be front and centre of any programme of assistance, an approach I discussed with the IMF in Washington last week. The IMF sent key officials to Kiev yesterday. G7 Finance Ministers have issued a statement declaring our readiness to mobilise rapid technical assistance to support Ukraine in addressing its macroeconomic, regulatory and anti-corruption challenges.
The EU has also previously committed €610 million in loans to Ukraine, which could be made available once an IMF programme has been agreed. In the longer term, through the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and neighbourhood funding, the EU will continue to provide significant support to Ukraine, including investment in infrastructure projects as well as intermediate loans to SMEs.
For our part, as I informed the Ukrainian Government yesterday, we will provide immediate technical assistance to Ukraine to support elections and assist with reforms on public financial management, debt management, and energy pricing. We are exploring the possibility of providing further UK expertise to assist with programmes to tackle corruption, reform the labour market and improve the investment climate in Ukraine, and a British team is already in Kiev to co-ordinate these efforts. We have also offered assistance on asset recovery, and I agreed with the Prime Minister of Ukraine yesterday to send a team to assist in providing the information we need to recover stolen assets, and to address this problem more widely.
Over the past four years, the Government have sought and secured an improved relationship with Russia, and we continue to work with Russia on immense global issues such as the nuclear negotiations with Iran and our efforts to make progress towards peace in Syria.
The UK’s national interest lies in a free, democratic, unified, stable and peaceful Ukraine able to make its own decisions about its future. We will continue to do everything we can to support the diplomatic resolution of all the issues I have described, exercising our responsibilities as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and working closely with the nations of NATO and the European Union. We will continue to discuss the situation directly with Russia’s leaders.
However, we also have a direct national interest in the maintenance of international law, the upholding of treaty obligations, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of independent nations, and the diplomatic resolution of conflicts that affect the peace and security of us all. For that reason, it is important that there is a clear response to these events, and that they are not repeated, and that is what we will pursue with determination in the days and weeks ahead”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, and I appreciate the early sight that we had of it. I will say immediately that I think it is a very serious and very valuable Statement. We wholly subscribe to two of the concluding points, and to much else as well, but I will start with the two concluding points:
“The UK’s national interest lies in a free, democratic, unified, stable and peaceful Ukraine able to make its own decisions about its future”,
and,
“we also have a direct national interest in the maintenance of international law”.
That is 100% common ground among us all.
Today we need, as I suspect we will need over the coming weeks and months, careful judgments and very careful words. The dangers of the position in which we find ourselves are plain to see, just as they were when we discussed this matter on 24 February. It is difficult to think of a greater threat to European security in the recent history of the continent. This incursion by Russia into the sovereign territory of a neighbour, far beyond the bases in Ukraine for which it has lease arrangements, breaks a raft of international laws and obligations. The Statement repeats them: it is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 and the Russia-Ukraine bilateral agreement of 1997 on military bases. It breaks all the agreements guaranteeing Ukrainian territorial integrity.
The diplomatic efforts by the Foreign Secretary and his visit to the Ukraine are to be applauded. The visit to Paris tomorrow is also important for carrying the process forward. It is helpful that Secretary Kerry has been so directly involved, as is the EU generally, and of significance that Chancellor Merkel has taken a leading role. Efforts at NATO are also of the first importance. Security co-operation is now becoming a non-credible option as far as NATO and Russia are concerned.
Plainly, Russia should step back. I think we all fear that it will not. It has no justification for its actions. The justifications it purports to provide—a letter from a fleeing and discredited President and the ever more extravagant denigration of the people and the interim Government of Ukraine, using fanciful and, on occasions, grotesque language—are raucous and synthetic. It is language that I suspect is constructed largely for a Russian domestic audience, designed to arouse popular memories of what was indeed a terrible period of Nazi invasion of Soviet territory and the unspeakable loss of lives at the hands of the Nazis. But it is not a credible description of the present and it runs the manifest risk that all such exercises do: that a belligerent state gradually comes to believe its own rhetoric. If Russia continues its current line of approach, it must be viewed as a threat to the south-east of Ukraine as a whole. Precisely this trajectory was discussed in your Lordships’ House last week.
First, this should not be allowed to drift, by accident or design, into armed conflict. The restraint of the Ukrainian people, state and forces is exceptional and commendable. I am sure that that will be felt right across the United Kingdom. It has been statesmanlike. As a result, there is no excuse for Russia to move from its current level of aggression to out-and-out violence. What we all need now is a process of de-escalation. All efforts at diplomacy must be made and the multinational institutions must step up to the mark—and quickly. It is clear that diplomacy has had little traction so far. However, appeals not to isolate Mr Putin have followed and, perhaps predictably, they have been unsuccessful. Nevertheless, nobody can be put off from making the effort.
I say the efforts have been unsuccessful. Chancellor Merkel found herself talking to a leader living, as she put it, in a parallel universe. Despite Germany’s dependence on Russian gas, the chancellor appears to have pulled no punches in what she said and I applaud that. Mr Kerry encountered a policy mindset that reminded him of the 19th century in its attitudes of large states to smaller ones—I confess that I have reached back to study Bismarck to try to find parallel language. Beyond dispute is that discussions setting out what President Obama called the consequences of continued military intervention fell on deaf ears. President Putin disregarded them, as he did proposals for an internationally mediated process to ensure the rights of Russian speakers in the Crimea and a formal special status to protect them. Indeed, President Putin talked to President Obama having already secured a unanimous vote in the Duma for military intervention. The only conclusion it is safe to draw is that this is about retrenching the Ukraine inside Russia’s sphere of influence rather than anything else. It goes further than securing Sevastopol, which was not in any case under threat. The hurt that may be felt by a diminished global status is the target Mr Putin seeks to address. The risks of the consequences do not appear to be that great to him, and that should cause us concern.
What is needed now is a process of stabilisation. Russian leaders must be able to calibrate—and do so on the basis of clear statements from all the rest of us—the balance of diplomatic and economic risks they face; that is, what have been described as the consequences. Ukrainian leaders must also and clearly opt for inclusiveness. The rights of populations within the country, including those speaking Russian, must be protected and those peoples need to know they are protected. I welcome the assurances that the Foreign Secretary received about the status of Russian language legislation. That should be a very helpful step. That is a basis for both the Ukraine and Russia moving forward in some form of dialogue as soon as possible. A role in defusing the crisis must be seized with both hands. Did the Foreign Secretary raise other issues with the Ukrainians that might go in the same direction during the course of his talks this week?
As my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander said in another place, Russia needs to be clear and to understand the consequences of its actions. His main point was that the rest of us need to understand the consequences of inaction. What will the United Kingdom say at the emergency session of the EU Foreign Affairs Council on Thursday? I assume that is going ahead and that we will attend it. What was said by the Foreign Secretary at yesterday’s EU Foreign Affairs Council? Is a process taking place of building from words about what the consequences may be to taking action? Are Her Majesty’s Government able to clarify what they advocate as the “costs” and “consequences”? Again, I make no apology for repeating this point. When dealing with a state leader like President Putin, it is critical that he understands precisely what everybody intends so that there can be no mistakes about what follows.
Is it right to say that all diplomatic and economic options are on the table for this Thursday? I have deliberately not included the word “military”, because I do not believe that anybody is looking in that direction; we are talking about diplomatic and economic options. Are those options on the table? If not, the Russian appetite for future military action will, in my view, have been whetted and we can expect to see more of it, to the detriment of the peoples of the region.
We are pulling out of the preparations for Sochi, and I am sure that that is right. Are the Government minded to pull out of the Sochi conference and to say so now? Is Russia now a legitimate member of the G8? Has it the status, does it meet the requirements, to take part in international bodies of that kind?
The financial support for Ukraine is obviously a matter of the first importance. We know that it needs $35 billion over the next 24 months to avoid a default. I think that the £10 million contribution from the United Kingdom is unquestionably helpful, but far more is needed and the IMF itself needs to take an important role. That role will be taken against a background, as the Statement says—again, I am glad that this is in the Statement—of dealing with poor institutions and ongoing corruption, but these are probably moments in which people will be more attentive to what is required of them than they might have been at some other points in their history when they saw less threat. The solvency issue is fundamental to any long-term prospects. If the country hollows out and falters, the prospect of ever reaching stability must be to that extent diminished.
I conclude by saying that all the direct contact that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and many of the other international diplomats have had must have been of help, and its continuation must be of help. There must be value in the formation of a contact group. It at least will set agendas, schedule meetings and try to ensure that people are around the table rather than simply working out where they can parade their troops next in somebody else’s territory.
This is difficult, and it is a time for the House and those of all parties who regard the United Kingdom’s interest as paramount to draw together.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord for his warm words of support and for his agreement on points of principle laid out in the Statement. I echo the sentiments that he expressed in his last sentence: this is a time for us to work together not just here as political parties in the United Kingdom but across the rest of Europe. Again, I echo the noble Lord when he says that this is a time for careful judgment and careful words. I hope that he will allow me to rest on those words in my answer. As I said in my answer to the Question that we had on Ukraine in this House early on Thursday of last week, it is an ever changing situation on the ground. Even at that stage, as I stood at the Dispatch Box I realised that things on the ground were changing.
I shall try to address a couple of the specific points that the noble Lord raised. I assure him that the issue of minority rights is one that we take incredibly seriously. It is right that we understand not just the rhetoric that we are hearing through some media channels in Russia but the sentiment behind some of those words. We must understand any concerns that there may be in relation to, for example, the Russian language. That was why the Foreign Secretary was quite explicit when he spoke to the interim president on his recent visit that there should not be any further measures which would be seen as an erosion of the Russian language; in fact, there should be some de-escalation around those matters.
The Foreign Affairs Council meeting on Thursday of this week is actually a heads of Government meeting, which the Prime Minister will be attending. The noble Lord asked a specific question about pulling out of the Sochi conference. These are all options which are currently being considered; unfortunately, I cannot give him a final response today.
Russia is part of the international community, and with that comes international obligations in ensuring that you adhere to treaty obligations that you have signed. Because of that, we feel that we have an interest—indeed, the whole of Europe has an interest—in making sure that those obligations are adhered to.
In relation to the IMF programme, as I said on Thursday there is of course a need for a comprehensive economic programme. There is no doubt that that is one of the biggest challenges facing Ukraine, aside from the territorial challenges that it faces right now. However, I think we would agree that, if an IMF programme is to be put in, while not forgetting that there have been two failed IMF programmes in Ukraine in the recent past, it is important to have a stable and secure political environment. It is to that end that Her Majesty’s Government continue to work, and I thank the noble Lord for his support.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, and though my noble friend, I thank the Foreign Secretary for this comprehensive and detailed Statement and for all the efforts that are being deployed on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government to try to stabilise and resolve this situation. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, mentioned Mr Putin’s propensity to expand his reach with what is beginning to appear as a dangerous frequency. However, the lessons for him in doing this will impact not only on international peace and security in Europe and in Ukraine but across the world. We have territorial disputes in the South China and East China seas, which will be watched extremely carefully by the parties to those disputes, and by China.
My noble friend did not mention one specific point, which I wonder whether she could respond to. It concerns the status of the referendum in Crimea at the end of the month and, should that referendum go in the direction of independence, the danger of what will happen in humanitarian terms to people who wish to be on the Ukrainian side of that argument. Can she reflect—perhaps not today but the next time we come back to this, as I am sure we will—on whether the international community, through the OSCE and the United Nations, can offer protection and safe passage for Ukrainian military personnel deployed in Crimea to get back to Ukraine, and for those citizens who for whatever reason, such as disturbances, riots or violence, may need to be evacuated and relocated? Thought and contingency planning should be given to that within the international organisations, beginning here and now.
Baroness Warsi
I thank my noble friend for her words of support and for the specific issues that she raised. The Foreign Secretary made it clear in the other place earlier today that, all over the world, there are situations where individual communities in areas of a country feel that they have a right to self-determination. That is right within the parameters of the constitution of a country; indeed, this Parliament has passed legislation allowing parts of a country to have a referendum in relation to their future. However, we are talking here about a completely different situation, which to some extent takes away from what may have been planned for the future of Ukraine, and for Crimea as part of it. This is the violation of the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation and it is therefore important that, at this stage, we keep pressing to make sure that Russia recognises and respects that. It should certainly adhere to the statements that were made in the many conversations held between the Prime Minister and President Putin only last week, and between the Foreign Secretary and Foreign Minister Lavrov.
In relation to the second specific issue which my noble friend raised about safe passage, I am not sure what the particular situation is on the ground right now and what the strength of concern is in relation to the safety of those troops. However, I will certainly make sure that those words are fed back into any discussions that may take place on Thursday.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, while accepting all that, it is the case that moralising alone is not going to work in these circumstances. Will my noble friend at least consider the reality of the situation—if it is the reality—that Ukraine splits naturally into two parts, and should it not be allowed to do so? That worked in Czechoslovakia and may have to work in this country, if Scotland votes the wrong way.
Baroness Warsi
I hear what my noble friend says, but I am not entirely sure that this is the kind of discussion that we should be having at the Dispatch Box at this time.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, there is a very widespread feeling in the world that Vladimir Putin’s ultimate ambition is to restore the frontiers of the Soviet empire and the Tsarist empire. If he succeeds in de facto occupying—or even, one might say, de facto annexing—the Crimea, that surely will be a great encouragement to him to proceed with that agenda a bit further; in fact, he would probably become a great hero to nationalist sentiment in Russia. Against that background, is it not important that not only do we have the right sanctions to apply if it is not possible to achieve some diplomatic solution over the next few days and weeks, as we all hope, but also that we look again at the long-term signals that we are sending to Russia? We should review two things in particular: first, the dependence of the European Union on Soviet, or rather Russian, natural gas—surely as an urgent strategic priority we should try to reduce that—and, secondly, the deplorable signal that we, along with many other EU countries, have been sending in reducing our defence expenditure. Terrible tragedies have happened in history because the wrong signals were sent to a potentially aggressive party.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, no doubt there is previous history in a very similar matter. We can draw parallels between Russia’s intentions in what is happening now with what happened not so long ago in relation to Georgia. That is something that we are acutely aware of. Only last week we were talking about sanctions with regard to Ukrainian politicians and now here we are talking about sanctions of a completely different kind. That just shows how quickly the situation is moving on the ground. We have already seen some of the consequences of sanctions and economic costs in what is being felt within Russia in relation to both its currency and its stock exchange. As to what is now happening and the consequences of Russia’s actions, it is important that we keep up that pressure. I do not think that a military option is on the table—the noble Lord opposite was kind enough to refer to that—and therefore I do not draw any parallels in relation to defence expenditure.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister accepts my warm support for the careful enumeration at the beginning of the Statement of the international obligations and breaches of international law that have taken place. That is absolutely vital. Since it is quite clear from the Statement that Russia has not fulfilled its obligations as a member of either the Council of Europe or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, will the future position of Russia in those organisations be one of the areas under consideration? Would she also accept my very strong agreement with her that there is absolutely no parallel with the peaceful separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Many years before, of course Czechoslovakia had been the object of something that much more closely resembles what Mr Putin has been doing in the Crimea.
Baroness Warsi
I add my support to what the noble Lord has said, and I thank him for his warm words. I agree with him that Russia’s membership of organisations has to be because Russia agrees with the values of those organisations regarding democracy and human rights. When it clearly appears to be violating the very values that it seeks to espouse in those organisations, then of course they have to consider whether such membership is appropriate. However, these are all matters that will be discussed and will be part of the package of options available to the international community. I return to what the intention is: it must be to de-escalate the situation and do whatever is needed to get to that stage.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that while she is absolutely right to talk about the potential significant economic costs to Russia, and indeed costs in other ways as well, we also need to keep it in mind that there could be major economic repercussions for western Europe as well, and indeed for the whole world economy, particularly if as a result energy prices suddenly begin to rocket even further than they have already? Can we be sure, in working towards establishing a more reasonable dialogue with Moscow, that we take into account the enormous British, European and indeed global investments that already exist in modern Russia, and the vast and intense integration of trade between Russia and the EU that exists today, and indeed with this country?
In the longer term, when we are beyond this crisis, we need closer relations with a prosperous and more democratic Russia. Does my noble friend accept that in the dialogue with Russia about stabilising the situation and the proper concern with what Mr Putin is apparently trying to do, these issues must be kept very clearly in mind and a sense of proportion maintained?
Baroness Warsi
I hear what my noble friend says. He always has wise words on these issues. It is because we accept that we have these interests in Russia and Europe that we feel it is important that it is in our interest, as well as Russia’s interest, to de-escalate the situation and return to a politically stable Ukraine. Of course the EU and the United Kingdom need Russia, but it is also important to stress that Russia needs the EU as much as the EU needs Russia, and Russia has to be reminded of the cost of not being part of, and playing its role as part of, the international community.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
This is an extremely dangerous world and it is a very sobering thought that if Ukraine were a member of NATO, we would be stepping towards a situation where we could actually go to war. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should use military force in this situation, but we could, and I share my noble friend’s view about the dangers for Europe of having cut defence expenditure. My question relates specifically to so-called smart sanctions. Broad sanctions seem to me to cause real damage to Europe, ourselves and everybody, not least to ordinary members of the Russian population. What is the Government’s view on so-called smart sanctions on leaders who have taken certain decisions within Russia, such as freezing their assets and stopping their visas, and do they believe that they would have an impact in making them think about what they are doing?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes an important point. Although Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it has a long-standing relationship with NATO and contributes to NATO operations, and has done so for many years. I am, with my wide portfolio in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, responsible for sanctions and therefore have spent some time considering what we call smart sanctions: well judged and well targeted sanctions that have impact. Sanctions should not be to make us feel better; they should be put in place so that they work and have an outcome. It is exactly in that vein that we consider them.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that we should be cautious about being quite so dismissive about the military implications of what has happened in Ukraine? I am not referring to military intervention in Ukraine by this country or other members of NATO, but about current members of NATO. Some of our most recent members have a memory that does not need to stretch back very far to create a great shadow of fear of Russia. Having worked very closely with some of these nations, I can assure your Lordships that that fear is very real and very existent. Some of these nations have Russian-speaking minorities. Will the UK Government do everything within their power to ensure that in the ongoing negotiations and discussions, NATO takes every possible action to demonstrate unequivocally to Russia its commitment, its capability and its will to defend all of its members under Article 5?
Baroness Warsi
I think I probably dealt with some of those issues in answering a previous question. I understand the sentiments that the noble and gallant Lord expresses. I do not think I was being dismissive in relation to potential military action; I was trying to say that it is important that we do not hypothesise about whether certain things—for example, if defence spending had been done differently or a certain decision on another foreign policy issue had been taken differently —would have had an impact on Russia’s intentions. I think it is probably better for us to try to understand the Russia psyche on Crimea and Ukraine, which may give us a slightly better perspective on the thinking behind Russia’s actions.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the speed of events out of a clear blue sky, when suddenly we find ourselves, as the noble Lord, Lord West, said, in an extremely dangerous situation in which there is a lot of fear on every side? It is important to remember that, since it is extremely dangerous. We need the greatest restraint on all sides, and we need the earliest possible meeting of Russia and Ukraine with the contact group to which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, referred to make sure that we get contacts in this way.
As Defence Secretary I paid an official visit to the Soviet Union when it was breaking up. One thing that came across very clearly was that, while they regretted the passing of some other members of the Soviet Union, the one they really minded about was Ukraine. It has a particular sensitivity for them, and of all the bits of Ukraine which have a sensitivity, Crimea in particular is one, not least because of the Russian Black Sea fleet being based there. It is against that background that I hope we will recognise the need, obviously, to make it absolutely clear that invasion and infringing the territorial sovereignty of another country are quite unacceptable. There needs to be the earliest possible discussion of these issues, which are not going to be easy to resolve. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to the referendum coming up which will raise further issues. We need to discuss it around a table, and not with bullets and guns in the streets.
Baroness Warsi
I fully endorse the incredibly wise and perceptive comments of my noble friend.
Lord Grenfell (Lab)
My Lords, I sometimes think that we are living in a bit of a dream world here. If anybody listened to President Putin’s press conference late this morning, as I did, they would have been left in absolutely no doubt whatever that he is unimpressed by all the threats that are being made against him. He may not in his heart of hearts believe that, but that is what he is saying. He is not impressed by sanctions, or by this or that with which we are threatening him. Is it not the truth that, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has said, Ukraine, and Crimea in particular, are extremely important to him and to Russia? He is not about to give in easily on this.
Would it not be far better if we stopped constantly saying that territorial integrity must be maintained when we know that it is very likely that it will not be, and that the solution will probably be that President Putin will get a lot of what he wants? In the end, Ukraine cannot exist if a part of that nation is in constant turmoil and being threatened by Russia. It would be far better, in my view, if an arrangement was reached whereby Crimea went back into the Russian Federation. Although there would still be problems in eastern Ukraine, you might then possibly have a united Ukraine which was capable of looking after its own affairs without further fear of Russia.
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes important points. It was exactly these sensitivities to which I referred in answering the Question on Thursday and, indeed, in the Statement today. We recognise and understand those sensitivities, and the emotional connection to which my noble friend Lord King has referred between Russia and Crimea and Ukraine. However, we must also not forget that a sovereign nation has been violated, and this cannot be the way in which we conduct international affairs. Simply to stand by and say that we recognise the emotional connection and the history of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, and must therefore to some extent accept and stand back from this situation, would not be the right approach. As my noble friend said earlier, there are territorial disputes all around the world. What kind of a signal would we therefore be sending?
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is it not true that Russia also has emotional connections with other parts of its former empire, including Armenia and Georgia? One cannot rely on that. The sad reality may be, alas, that Crimea may already be in the course of being lost to Ukraine, and that all we can do is try to ensure that eastern Ukraine does not follow the same path—by, for example, ensuring that adequate guarantees of freedom, language and so on are given to the Russian-speaking inhabitants of that region.
Can the Minister indicate a little more about what sanctions, asset freezes and smart sanctions we have in mind? In terms of institutions, if there is no adequate response from Russia in respect of the pressures which we exert, are we considering, for example, seeking the suspension of Russia from the Council of Europe in the same way that the Conservative group yesterday withdrew from the European Democratic Group, where they sit with their Russian colleagues? What about the OSCE? What about the G7/G8? What consideration, if any, has been given to the UK taking the lead in calling for the suspension of Russia from these various international organisations?
Baroness Warsi
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go into a huge amount of detail at this stage. I will simply say that all options, whether diplomatic or economic, are on the table at this stage. However, as noble Lords will understand from today’s debate if not from anything else, those actions have to be collective. Those collective discussions and options have to be discussed in the right fora, of which the Heads of Government meeting on Thursday is one. Therefore we may return to this matter, possibly next week.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for repeating what has been an unusually constructive Statement as regards what we have been hearing for the past month. Is it not a fact that Mr Kerry and our Secretary of State have been sabre-rattling in a thoughtless manner for almost a month until we could not expect any other reaction from Mr Putin than that which we have?
Over the past 45 years I have run my life and other people’s lives on the basis of planning and preparation, not on that of prejudice. After having listened to the prejudicial statements that we have heard for the past month, I ask: is it not true that it is time we grew up as regards the reality of international relations rather than the prejudice that we illustrate all too ineptly?
Baroness Warsi
I was incredibly heartened because the noble Lord started off in such a constructive fashion, and I thought that we would try to find a meeting of minds somewhere in his question or maybe even in his comments. Unfortunately, I disagree with much of what he has said. He may not be happy with that very simple and short answer, but I am sure that if he requires a more detailed answer, he will write to me, and I will respond.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is amended as follows.
( ) In Schedule 3”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, on Report I indicated the Government’s intention to bring forward an amendment on a future reduction in the size of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Some noble Lords were concerned about the breadth of the current provision in Clause 6 to make a reduction in the size of the Assembly a reserved matter.
The Bill as it stands would enable the Assembly to legislate, with the Secretary of State’s consent, to reduce the number of Members returned to it for each Westminster constituency. Currently six are returned from each of the 18 constituencies, which makes a total of 108 members. In Committee, views were expressed that the Secretary of State’s ability to withhold consent to such an arrangement was not a sufficient safeguard. It would be open to the larger parties to legislate for a very substantial reduction in size. Smaller parties might suffer disproportionately if the number of Members returned for each constituency was significantly reduced.
The Government recognise those concerns and we have reflected carefully. Many in Northern Ireland hold that, at 108 Members, the Assembly is too large. However, it is certainly not our intention that it should shrink dramatically. When it was established, the intention was that it should be a widely inclusive body, and that remains essential to the healthy functioning of the Northern Ireland settlement.
This amendment would limit any reduction in the Assembly’s size to five Members per constituency. It also requires that any such reduction must have cross-community support in the Assembly. Of course, the decision to reduce the size of the Assembly is ultimately a matter for the Assembly itself. The effect of the amendment is to confine the option to a reduction of one Member per constituency. If the Assembly decides to take that up, smaller parties and minority voices will still be well represented within the Assembly.
A number of noble Lords have indicated to me in the past day or so that, in speaking to these amendments this afternoon, they intend to refer to issues that have arisen in the past week in relation to the issuing of letters to so-called on-the-runs. I assure your Lordships that I will address that issue when I sum up on this amendment, once I have listened to noble Lords’ points and questions.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the proposed amendment offers sufficient protection and that they will feel able to support it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, two potential processes can affect the size of the Assembly. The noble Baroness has mentioned one process but, of course, there is a second, over which the Assembly has no control whatever—that is, if a future Parliament decides to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons, as was the case in this Parliament. The net effect of that would have been to reduce the size of the Assembly by two constituencies, thereby reducing its membership by 12. If the Assembly decided to reduce itself to 90 Members, which would be the proposal if you reduced by one seat per constituency, it would have no control over the fact that it could subsequently be reduced to 80; that would be an entirely separate process over which it has no control. Incidentally, I do not accept that the size of the Assembly is exclusively a matter for the Assembly. The size was determined by agreement, and therefore is at this point in time not a matter exclusively for the Assembly.
I just make the point to the noble Baroness that there are two processes that can affect the Assembly’s size. The Assembly may have control of one, but it most certainly does not have control of the other. That needs to be borne in mind. While the noble Baroness has repeated to us on a number of occasions that there is no consensus on certain things and therefore we cannot proceed with them, I point out to her that there is no consensus on this in Stormont either. It is merely setting out a stall, and I think that she was trying to respond to some of the concerns that a number of us raised. I still think that it is a tricky issue, and I caution the fact that there could be a two-stage rocket here, and that the Assembly has no control over a reduction in the size of the House of Commons, which would have a subsequent effect on the size of the Assembly.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to speak in a more generic sense about what is literally going on at the moment and what is being contrived. I was grateful to the Minister for turning up at the meeting with the Secretary of State yesterday evening. I am somewhat disappointed that she has not preceded the amendment with a statement that would have clarified some of the points that we raised. It appears to me—and I think most people would accept—that we are being asked to legislate on Northern Ireland affairs while they are being blanketed over by secret deals and arrangements that are not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, certainly not in the interests of the victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and not in the interests of those soldiers and policemen who, to try to bring peace to our part of the United Kingdom, gave their lives in considerable numbers.
The reality is that eight years ago, in the aftermath of the St Andrews agreement, secret deals were carried out not with one section of our society in terms of nationalist or unionist, but with one little caucus within one section of our society. Those arrangements were dishonourable in the extreme.
If I had had a relative die in Regent’s Park, I would not have a great deal of sympathy for a Government trying to build the future of Northern Ireland, given their attitude to one of the perpetrators of that outrage. I was closer to those victims than most in this Chamber, and that is why I challenge the Minister on this issue on their behalf. It is not always the case in another place but I always believed that this House was an exemplar of democracy and doing things correctly, not a place where we would seek to build on deceitfulness and sleight of hand, such as we have seen in respect of the post-St Andrews arrangements.
Before the Minister goes any further, will she address the reality of deceit that pervades the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? Not to do so will leave unsatisfied people such as myself, people in Northern Ireland and, not least, the relatives of soldiers and members of the Army who may still be subject to investigation by the PSNI in respect of that unfortunate situation 40-something years ago, when we put young soldiers with no experience of crowd control into a very difficult situation in Londonderry. Perhaps she can tell me whether they are still under investigation by the PSNI. That situation was more than unfortunate; it is something of which we have been ashamed over the years. Some 40-something years on, people in my age group are sitting at home wondering when they will be hauled in front of the courts while the terrorists—the people who planned and murdered in cold blood—are given carte blanche in respect of their actions.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, from the start when there was discussion about reducing the number of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I have expressed some concern about it. I have never bought the proposition that 108 Members was too large for Northern Ireland, because of the complexity of representation and the running of affairs in Northern Ireland. However, in a time of austerity, when the Assembly and Executive have not exactly distinguished themselves by the volume of quality legislation or governance that they have produced, there is without a doubt public pressure to reduce its size. At the same time, there is a substantial reduction in the number of elected representatives at municipal level and an increasing complexity in the running of events in Northern Ireland.
One thing that is clear, which we shall consider later, is that the Government want to give more and more responsibility to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Assembly were functioning well I would have no objections, but it has not been functioning well. Indeed, over the past week or two, given the recent events that were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, relationships between the parties at the most senior levels are worse than they have been for a long time. I therefore want again to express concern about this whole question of reducing the number of Members of the Assembly.
However, I value the amendment brought forward by the noble Baroness. It at least makes it clear that you cannot simply keep on salami-slicing the Assembly’s representation. However, there are often rather superficial views of the work and value of Assembly Members, as compared with the situation in Wales or Scotland, where the issues are completely different. Devolution was not brought to Northern Ireland for the same reasons for which it was introduced in Wales and Scotland. There were different requirements and functions in addition to all the important issues about making sure that governance is as close to the people as possible and so on. I want to flag that up.
It is impossible to ignore the fact that the whole structure is now somewhat shaken by the recent revelations about the on-the-runs letters issue. This is serious because for the past few years there has been within the unionist and loyalist community a sense of alienation. Whether that is justified is not the issue, but we all know that it is there. At the same time, we have elections coming up this year, next year and the year after, over which there are all sorts of anxieties and concerns within the unionist community and, indeed, more widely.
What troubles me somewhat about the general drift of the Bill is that it feels like some measure of disengagement. It is as though we are saying, “We’ve got a resolution with the Good Friday agreement. These are big boys and girls, and it is time to let them get on with things”. Not to be too trivial, it seems to me that it is much more like bringing up teenagers and adolescents, whereby you have to be there and not be there. There is no right way of doing it, but you always have to make sure that you are available because, as sure as eggs are eggs, problems will arise, and if you are not there to help out there will be tragedy.
In terms of administration, the Northern Ireland Office is a tiny affair. It is not quite back at the level that it was before the whole process began in Northern Ireland when Sir John Chilcot, who now has other responsibilities, was a junior official at the Home Office and part of his responsibility was all the Northern Ireland issues. It is not now quite at that level, but it is getting there. Even within the Northern Ireland Office as it is, there are very few people who remember what was necessary for the peace process. The institutional memory is almost threadbare. That is not the fault of the people who are there; it is just the reality of what happens over a period of time.
People may assume that everything will go swimmingly, simply because Northern Ireland is not so much in the news. Events over the past week or two have made it clear that there are serious issues to be dealt with. Why were Mr Haass and Dr O’Sullivan brought in? It was because there were problems regarding the legacy of the past that had not been resolved and were unable to be resolved by the devolved Assembly and Executive. So we did what we have done in the past and asked people to come in from outside to help us. However, it is clear that that did not work.
If the Assembly and the Executive are unable to address the issue, and if those eminent, thoughtful, committed and knowledgeable people who were brought in were unable to resolve it, it seems to me that it is incumbent on the British and Irish Governments at the highest levels to address the question of how we deal with the issues of the past. Although there are lots of matters that one can bring up regarding the on-the-runs letters, this is fundamentally about how we deal with the issues of the past, not just in terms of republicans but in terms of loyalists, and particularly those who served in the security forces over a long period, who still wonder what the future holds for them.
Without wanting to drag this out, I emphasise that it feels—although this may not be the case—as though there is an element of pulling back and disengagement in the drift of the Bill. What has happened in the past week or two has been a very clear demonstration that this is not a time for disengagement, emotional or otherwise. Rather, at the highest levels of government— I am talking about the level of Prime Minister and Taoiseach—there needs to be some responsible re-engagement between the British and Irish Governments and the leaders of the Executive in Northern Ireland to address the issues of the past and all that they mean. There should not be a feeling that we can simply shovel them back over the water and hope that everything will work out well. That is what happened between 1921 and the late 1960s.
For goodness’ sake, let us not make the same mistake of leaving things unattended to until it is too late and we then face an intolerable mess. That is not necessary and we should not do it.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for bringing forward the amendments that we are going to consider. They go some way towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed and it is very welcome that she has responded to them in that way. I also thank her for her acknowledgement that we could not pass by the events of last week. We have not had the opportunity in this House to refer to these matters because Statements were not repeated. If we were simply engaged in a mundane debate, people outside looking in would wonder what on earth was going on. Therefore, I am very glad that the Minister has widened the scope of the discussion, and I am going to take advantage of it in just a moment.
I very much agree with quite a few of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said. I was particularly attracted to his analogy of teenagers, although he should perhaps go a little further and bear in mind that some teenagers have delinquent tendencies and it is slightly better to view the matter in that way. We all know that it is absolutely essential that teenagers with delinquent tendencies have clear boundaries. In that situation, nothing is worse than letting people think that the boundaries can be blurred and that they can get away with things. Unfortunately, that has been done again and again over the past 15 years with regard to the republican movement.
Although what the noble Lord says about institutional memory is true, one tendency has not been forgotten. In the old days before the agreement, we used to say that the default mode of the Northern Ireland Office was to make sure that it kept the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade happy. Since the agreement, the default mode of the Northern Ireland Office has been to keep Gerry and Martin happy, irrespective of any other consideration—or that is how it seems. What was revealed last week regarding the letters that were sent out in connection with 187 cases, and what was described by Dominic Grieve in his Statement to the other place as the administrative process involving the Northern Ireland Office, the public prosecutor and the police, certainly ought not to have happened in the way that it did, and perhaps it ought not to have happened at all.
There are a number of really interesting aspects of the judgment, which I recommend to everyone. I am going to mention just a couple of paragraphs, one being paragraph 36. It reads:
“On 2 June 2000 the Attorney General”,
who I think at that time was Lord Williams of Mostyn,
“wrote to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland … Peter Mandelson stating: ‘… I am seriously concerned that the exercise that is being undertaken has the capacity of severely undermining confidence in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland at this most sensitive of times. Individual prosecution decisions have to be justifiable within the framework in which all prosecution decisions are reached and I am not persuaded that some unquantifiable benefit to the peace process can be a proper basis for a decision based on the public interest”.
Interestingly, that last phrase about the peace process was echoed by the judge, Sweeney J, in this case at paragraph 168, in which he said that he was not taking that into account, adding,
“that is a matter for politicians and Parliament”,
and not for judges. I heartily applaud that.
Paragraph 37 is even more interesting. After referring to the letter from the Attorney-General, paragraph 37 states:
“That was followed by further correspondence and meetings (whether between Ministers or officials) during the course of which the need to proceed ‘by the book’ was accepted”.
So afterwards,
“the need to proceed ‘by the book’ was accepted”.
The implication is that before this stage people were not proceeding by the book. Of course, the great danger of this scheme is that it will create pressures on officials in the prosecuting authority and among the police not to stick to the book and to give what they think is the answer that Ministers want. One has seen that happen in Northern Ireland in other circumstances as well.
I urge noble Lords to read paragraph 82 of the judgment, which is a lengthy statement by an official from the prosecuting authority indicating all the problems and difficulties that this caused. If noble Lords read that, they will come, as I have done, to the conclusion that this whole exercise was misconceived and that it was asking questions of the police and the prosecuting authority that they could not reasonably and properly answer, and that the whole process is one that should never have been undertaken. If you have any doubt about the undesirability of it, you only have to read paragraph 52, which states:
“At a meeting with the SSNI”—
the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—
“in May 2001 Mr Adams expressed the view that … it would be better if there was an invisible process for dealing with OTRs”.
Even Mr Adams wanted it to be kept but of course he wanted it to be kept invisible because it existed for the benefit of the IRA only. That is part of the reason why Lord Williams of Mostyn was so concerned about it. That concern comes out in paragraph 82 if you read it alongside.
This scheme was being put in place deliberately for the purpose of benefiting only one party and only one side of the community, and obviously was to be kept secret from the rest in so far as was possible. Incredibly, it was kept secret for so long, partly due to Answers to Parliamentary Questions given from the other side of the House which were quite simply lies. There is no other word to describe that. It is appalling that this happened.
I feel particularly ashamed that it continued after 2010 and that our Conservative Ministers were engaged in the decision. The decision to continue doing this was made by Owen Paterson. I wonder what advice he received to lead to that. I am very disappointed that it did not occur to him or to the other Ministers involved to say, “This is something which we should not have anything to do with. The previous Government may have done it but this is not something which we should put our hand to at all”. I have to say that I applaud what David Ford has said on this matter that he is not going to tolerate it in his department. Of course it should have been devolved to his department in 2010 but it continued after that being run by the Northern Ireland Office. It was interfering with criminal justice matters even though it no longer had responsibility for criminal justice matters. That is really very strange. It could only happen in the Northern Ireland Office. At that, I think I should conclude.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
I wish to speak first of the reduction, the possible reduction and future reduction in the number of constituencies. The constituency in which I live is some 75% or 80% unionist. Of the original seats, two managed to elect nationalist, non-unionist politicians. The boundaries were withdrawn. One of the nationalist seats disappeared, so we are now down to five unionist and one nationalist seat. I declare an interest because my husband held one of those seats in the Assembly.
My point is that the impact of reducing the number of seats on the possibility of there being any purpose at all in voting in Northern Ireland is something of which the people of Northern Ireland are very aware. There are whole constituencies on both sides of the divide where people feel that at present there is little purpose in voting. We have single transferable voting so there is some purpose but I would very much endorse the words of my noble colleagues in regretting any attempt not to preserve the current numbers of Members of the Assembly.
I also want to talk about a matter which other noble Lords have addressed; namely, the crisis—it is a crisis—in the justice system in Northern Ireland at present. It is reaching right across the community. It has introduced a sense of distrust, which was beginning to be healed, throughout our community.
There has been no discussion in your Lordships’ House about what was done. Last week, a man walked free from court because he had had a letter that said the police had no interest in him. As the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said, we believe that there are 187 such letters. I heard one former Secretary of State talk of the possibility of 200 such letters.
The problem is that letters of comfort may or may not have had the effect of removing the possibility of any future prosecution—not least because their very existence gives rise to the possibility of an abuse of process application in the event of any attempt to prosecute, but also because the letters of comfort have generated such consternation. There was no knowledge of these letters of comfort among the general population of Northern Ireland. It was a betrayal of the people.
Great courage was needed to do some of the things that had to be done, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, for what he did to bring peace to Northern Ireland. However, it was a very difficult time, and I have said repeatedly in your Lordships’ Chamber that this deal is not done and settled; it is a very fragile state of affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, told us that Adams said it would be better if it were an invisible process—but it was an invisible process. I know, because in 2001 I was investigating cases involving IRA men who were acting as agents of the state for the police. In investigating those cases I had to look at the criminality of the IRA personnel. The HET is investigating the criminality of the IRA personnel, and the PSNI currently is also investigating that criminality. Neither the HET nor the criminal investigations branch of the PSNI was informed of the situation. None of us knew who we might have in our sights, if you like, and who would have been taken out of the sights of the Director of Public Prosecutions by virtue of a letter that may or may not have been issued, which may or may not have been correct in its terminology but which ultimately might have the effect of compromising any possibility of prosecution.
In such circumstances, the Government are spending huge sums of money to sustain a criminal justice system in Northern Ireland that is based on, to some extent, very significant failure. Throughout the Haass talks, there was a lot of talk about how we would deal with the past; it was one of the three strands of the talks. As I understand it, the possibility of letters of comfort did not at any stage get a mention.
We knew about royal pardons and the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. We could identify where both those might have happened, although the information was generally not made public. However, we did not know about these letters. It is profoundly important that this Parliament should concern itself with them. This Parliament is concerned that those who might have abused children in years past, and who are being investigated in the Savile investigation, should be prosecuted. Surely this Parliament has a duty to have the same standards of justice for the people of Northern Ireland.
The final thing I will say is that this was a secret process that has, as I said, undermined our justice system. The fact that it would do so was recognised in 2000 when the process started. There is much work to be done to try to explain what happened and what the ongoing implications are for the operation of the justice system in Northern Ireland today.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, but I had the honour to be the chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place for the whole of the previous Parliament. During that time, I came to know, respect and admire many of those, from all parts of the community, who were fighting very courageously for peace. I came to have a particular regard for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I had many meetings with her and admired the judicious sensitivity with which she approached her difficult task.
I have always had a very high regard for my noble friend Lord Trimble, who was a very courageous trailblazer. Without him, and without what he and Seamus Mallon did, we would not have had the Good Friday agreement. Although that came about during the premiership of Tony Blair, Prime Minister Blair himself was the first to acknowledge, in the ceremony that was held a few yards from here in the Royal Gallery, that without what John Major had done he could not have achieved what he did.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, I listened with interest to my friend—and my noble friend—Lord Alderdice and his comments about delinquent children. As a product of the Province about which he was talking, I have tried to keep my delinquent tendencies under control. He and I spent many a happy hour together talking about the foundations of what was eventually to be the Good Friday agreement, and he will recall that there was always a tendency to say at a certain point, “This really ought to be moved up the chain of command to the very top”. There is a well established political ambience in Northern Ireland where, when things get particularly difficult, the inclination is to say, “Let the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Taoiseach sort it out for us”, or at the very least to give them the opportunity to put pressure on us local politicians so that we can use them as an excuse for doing what is right.
I hope my noble friend will not mind if I say that I did not quite buy the analogy. There has to come a time in Northern Ireland when, no matter how difficult it is, the locally elected people see it as being in their interests and in the interests of the people whom they serve to take on the very difficult stuff. I yield to no one in my understanding of how difficult it is.
In that context, I, too, want to show my appreciation for the work that my noble friend Lord Trimble did. He was key to this process and, as is frequently the case in Northern Ireland, those who make the principled stand soon get moved away from centre-stage for other reasons. It is right that your Lordships’ House should not forget the role that he played. When he addresses this Chamber, his words need to be taken seriously.
I had the privilege of working as a Minister in Northern Ireland—I am one of only two who did more than six years in the job—and I learnt at the knees of my noble friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Brooke, who is in his place. They both know how grateful I am to them for what I was able to learn from their leadership. But their leadership consisted of us dealing with the Northern Ireland political parties on the basis of truth. Nobody ever accused us, in all the years that we had the responsibility for building up to the Good Friday agreement, of being misleading, disingenuous or plain untruthful.
One could not necessarily say that about all of the build-up to the agreement. I remember the first time that my noble friend Lord King told me about the proposed details. He asked me, as an Ulsterman, for my reaction and I said, “The unionist community will not like”—and I mentioned three things. I went on to say, “They will not like it very much”. His reply is burned into my memory: “That’s not what my officials are telling me”. Of course, those officials, by deliberate decision, excluded all Northern Ireland Office officials.
One could argue that whatever within the law had to be done to move forward the possibility of a better relationship between the two Governments and the two parts of the island of Ireland, was worth it. Personally, I take that view. I understand how difficult the agreement is, but it was a historic net plus for the island of Ireland and for the people of Northern Ireland. However, there is all that has been said—including by my noble friend Lord Maginnis, if he will permit me to call him that—about the hurt, sacrifice, bloodshed, killing and lack of being held responsible on the part of so many people. Not even your Lordships’ House in all its strength, wisdom and experience can sweep that emotion under the carpet as if it is of no concern. That is why over the past week I have been—what is the diplomatic word that would pass your Lordships’ approval?—disappointed in the former Secretary of State, Mr Hain. To argue that because people understood that there was a problem about on-the-runs meant that everybody knew exactly what was happening was disingenuous to the point of, well, being really disingenuous. People knew there was a problem but did not know what the solution to that problem was.
The second thing that bothers me greatly is the claim that these letters were only an administrative process. As we have heard this afternoon, the Attorney-General was involved in repeating that claim. When I was Minister in the Northern Ireland Office we did not do administrative processes: a Minister was responsible and had to say “yes”. Nobody has told us which Northern Ireland Ministers and which British Ministers said “yes, go ahead” to this. I do not want to hear anything more about it being “only a bureaucratic activity” or “administrative process”. That is not the constitutional way in which the British Government operate. Let us come clean on this. I look to my noble friend on the Front Bench to come clean at the end of this debate. If people are to have confidence and trust, they must be treated not as delinquent children but as grown-up adults who can take the truth and handle that truth.
One final thing: I am pleased that we are debating this. I share my noble friend Lord Trimble’s disappointment—I think he used a stronger word—that Ministers in our party have continued to behave following the bad example of the Minister in the preceding Government. However, maybe because I am getting old and cynical—I hope not—I am also seriously disappointed that my noble friend on the Front Bench did not address this issue at the start of proceedings rather than at the end. I heard her say that she would reply after she had heard the views expressed. What your Lordships’ House needed was a definitive government statement that would have set the framework for the rest of us to express views, to which she could have returned because she has the opportunity to close this debate. I do not find this process acceptable. By the way, I support the amendment.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, the voices we have heard in this debate represent among them some of those who have made, on a sacrificial basis, a situation of relative peace, relative progress and relative hope. I am delighted to hear the tributes that have been paid, among others, to those who made that sacrificial attempt to bring us to where we are in Northern Ireland today. In particular, I join my voice to those who have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble.
In my position not as a politician but as the elected leader of a major denomination in Ireland for 22 years —those years spanning much of the worst years of our troubles—it was a privilege to get to know those elected politicians who found themselves in a position to move us towards peace. I was also privileged as a pastor to share with them their emotions, their thoughts and their problems. That is a privilege I will carry with me to my grave.
Listening to the debate this afternoon, I am reminded of two factors that I would beg the Minister to keep in mind when she responds to this debate. First, it is not just political voices that we must listen to today. We have to listen to widows. We have to listen to little children who are now adults. We have to listen to those who are not here to make their voice heard from Northern Ireland but who, through those tremendously devastating years, hoped that they could make trust with some.
The events of the past few days have not just shattered the trust of so many of us but have raised questions that, in their turn, have raised other questions: questions about misleading; questions about lies; and questions of a lack of trust in high places. Whatever we argue about this afternoon, and whatever we disagree about, of course there was a price to be paid for peace, of course things had to be done which were in a grey area, rather than black and white. I accept that, and I know something of the agony through which many decision-makers had to pass to make those decisions and to make those policies a possibility and a brick towards peace, but there is a limit to the way in which the elastic of public trust can be pushed or pulled. I beg the Minister to recognise that in listening to the voices that she has heard in this debate, the voices that she will not hear in this Chamber are saying, “Who do we trust, who can we depend on and what is the honest emotional answer to the grievous memories we have of the past?”.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to remember this. While of course we have to look forward and have our hopes for the future, and while so much has been achieved in the political process for which we must be thankful, I beg the Government to realise that we are talking about a very fragile situation and that one little incident can be multiplied out of all proportion and used to build on mistrust. I therefore share the view that it would have been helpful had we had a Statement at the beginning of this debate, rather than allowing our emotions to build up with other questions. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I pay tribute again to all the Lord Trimbles who have played a part in building this fabric.
It was my privilege when, five years ago—it is hard to believe that it was five years ago but the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as the former chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, will know exactly what I am talking about—I was asked by the then Government to co-chair the consultative group on the past of Northern Ireland. We produced many suggestions. I venture to suggest that some of those proposals should been given more serious consideration five years ago than in fact turned out to be the case. Many are now recognising, as they say to me, that we should have given more consideration to some of those proposals for dealing with the past.
I say to the Minister that until we find a way of dealing with the past—not just this incident but the fabric that went to cause the division, the Troubles and the suffering—that involves all those who can make worthwhile decisions in finding a structure to deal with that past, Northern Ireland’s future will go on to have incidents like those of the past few days. I beg the Minister to use her influence with Her Majesty’s Government and all the other Ministers involved so that what we have been agonising over in the past few days never happens again.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing the time to discuss the issue of on-the-runs. To quote the First Minister, the right honourable Peter Robinson MLA,
“This entire incident has been another salutary lesson about the dangers of allowing powers to be exercised by those whose only concern was in appeasing the IRA”.
He said that devolution may be imperfect—indeed, today we are looking at ways of improving devolution—but that no Stormont Administration would ever have allowed that scheme to be put in place. That scheme, he went on,
“was put in place by a direct rule administration. It is appalling that we are now having to deal with the legacy of a process begun so many years ago”.
This issue has caused incredible instability in the Northern Ireland arrangement. The credibility of the justice system is a cornerstone in any democracy. In the weeks and months ahead, I am sure that we must all work together to make sure that the damage which has already been done will be repaired. The need of victims demands no less; the requirement of justice requires no less. I hope that the actions to be taken in future will bring this scandalous episode to an end and that all the efforts which we will make will be well worth while.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Trimble spoke for me regarding the events of last week. I associate myself completely with his remarks. I have two questions arising from what he said, and to which he himself gave voice. I shall repeat them and ask the Minister for replies to them. First, how was this dishonourable and disreputable policy allowed to continue under the current Government, from whom I and many others hoped for better standards and a better approach? Secondly, why was all knowledge and all information about this policy withheld from the devolved institutions when security and justice were passed to them? We have been told repeatedly in this debate that we must respect the devolved institutions and that they must have entire responsibility for those things that are in their Province and devolved to them. Now we hear that the Government themselves have not adhered to that principle. Why?
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendments. The Opposition welcome them. In Committee, concerns were expressed by several noble Lords about the current provision in Clause 6 to make a reduction in the size of the Assembly a reserved matter. These amendments would limit any reduction in the size of the Assembly to five members per constituency, and would make it clear that any reduction must have cross-community support in the Assembly. They would also prevent the Secretary of State putting forward for Royal Assent any Bill passed in the Assembly to reduce its size if that Bill did not have cross-community support.
I place on record the Official Opposition’s respect and admiration for the contributions made by several noble Lords in the House today. The situation over the past week has been extremely difficult, and it is good to have an opportunity to discuss it. The House has served Parliament and the country well with the tone and content of all the comments, which have been reasoned, informed and constructive. They have looked forward, with no great hassle about delving into the past but recognising that the past is presenting problems. As we have all discussed before, Northern Ireland is on a journey, and this is a particularly bumpy part of the road.
I would like to pick up particularly the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about disengagement. The message must go out from the Chamber today that there is no disengagement. The message must go to the UK Government, the Republic of Ireland Government and all parties in this House and in the other place that we cannot allow this situation to derail the whole process. There are legitimate questions to be asked and it is right that they are, but today’s contributions give me hope that we will collectively get over this situation because of the reasoned response of so many Members with so much experience in this House and in Northern Ireland itself, and we will move on.
This House has shown a flexibility and maturity that other places are perhaps too strict to deal with. This is not at all meant as a criticism of the Minister but, in line with a point that has been made, I ask that in any future Statement on this issue adequate time is allowed, rather than the usual 10 minutes that we would get. This debate today has showed that, without taking overlong, the contributions have been extremely well made, and I ask that any future Statement be that little bit longer. As I say, that is not meant as a criticism of the Government or the Minister, but the maturity and dexterity demonstrated today by all concerned show that this House is the place to deal with these issues.
Baroness Randerson
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I shall respond in two parts. I shall first deal with the amendments in this group, and then I shall deal with the issue of the letters.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a point about the potential impact of boundary changes in Westminster constituencies on the Assembly in Northern Ireland. This issue could be looked at again in the context of any reduction in the number of parliamentary constituencies. Indeed, we would expect that to happen. Under the provisions of the Bill, it would be open to the Assembly to reverse any reduction if the number of Westminster constituencies were to be reduced. Therefore, it could restore the number of representatives per Westminster constituency to six, for example, to restore the overall size of the Assembly.
I take issue with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made about this not being the time to give the Assembly additional powers. It is important to reassure noble Lords that there is no plan immediately to introduce all these potential changes. The Northern Ireland Office and the Government are acutely aware of the importance of timing and of dealing with this in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time. As one or two noble Lords have said, it is important that we develop and trust devolution. The point was made that the problems we have had in the past week are problems associated not with devolved government but with the UK Government. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that because we have a problem now we should not trust devolution. It needs the opportunity to grow.
I now turn to the letters issued to so-called on-the-runs. One or two noble Lords made a point about the timing of what I shall say in relation to the debate as a whole. I remind noble Lords that we have tried to keep the House informed. We have issued two Written Statements, and in the other place there have been questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General about them. I used the opportunity of the Bill to try to overcome the procedural constraints which I understand are frustrating noble Lords. I am trying to make the best use of the time available. I assure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, that I will do my very best, within the constraints of the procedure in this House, which is agreed with the Opposition, to ensure that there is adequate time to satisfy noble Lords on the various points that they have raised.
I entirely understand that many noble Lords are very keen to set on record their deeply felt concerns about recent developments in Northern Ireland. The Bill, of course, does not directly bear upon those concerns, but it does indeed touch on the issue of confidence in the institutions. It is important to bear in mind that, throughout the past week, it has been clear that Northern Ireland is no longer in a position in which our business can be derailed by political disagreements in quite the same way as was possible in the past. It is essential to the peaceful and prosperous future of Northern Ireland that ordinary, good government goes on. I acknowledge that this House has not yet had the opportunity for debate that many noble Lords are still seeking. However, I point out that, since the High Court judgment in the case of John Downey was delivered on 21 February, there have been, as I said, two Written Statements by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 25 and 28 February. The Attorney-General has also made a Written Ministerial Statement.
Looking at the substantive facts as far as they are known, on coming into office in May 2010, the Government were made aware of a list of names submitted by Sinn Fein to the previous Government under an agreement they had reached to clarify the status of OTRs. These were people living outside the United Kingdom who believed that if they returned they would be wanted by the police for questioning in connection with terrorist offences committed before the Belfast agreement. One or two noble Lords have asked why such a scheme was not available to loyalists. It is my understanding that there had been no request for a similar scheme.
Under the scheme, the police and, in some cases, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland checked whether sufficient evidence existed in each case at that time for these individuals to be questioned, arrested or prosecuted if they returned to Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. If it was found that they were not wanted by the police and that there was no prospect of any prosecution based on the evidence available, the individuals were informed of that fact by a letter from a Northern Ireland Office official. The letters did not amount to immunity, exemption or amnesty from arrest. I say to the noble Baroness that they were not letters of comfort. They were factual statements.
The fact that the letters did not confer immunity, exemption or amnesty was the situation in the past and remains the case now. No recipient of such a letter should be in any doubt that, if evidence emerges after the date on which the letter was issued in connection with terrorist offences committed before the Belfast agreement, they will be liable for arrest and prosecution.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
Is that not pie in the sky? The reality is that these people are now free to come back without interference from the police. Is the Minister honestly trying to convince us this evening that there would be the degree of further investigation that would produce fresh evidence? The Minister knows different, and I certainly know different.
Baroness Randerson
I beg to disagree with the noble Lord; I certainly do not know different. I am aware that, for example, the Historical Enquiries Team is looking assiduously at a number of cases and will continue to do so. It is important that the noble Lord takes account of the fact that there will be an inquiry into this, to which I will come in a moment. That will establish many of the facts that the noble Lord seeks.
Baroness O'Loan
I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness has just said, and I want her to clarify whether there was an investigation before the issue of these letters—which proved to be a comfort to some, I have to say—or whether the police were tasked to check whether there were outstanding warrants. Had there been an investigation there would have had to have been a proper review of the investigation file in respect of specific events and the extent to which individuals were linked to them. Was that investigation conducted or was a lesser exercise conducted, which simply examined whether there was sufficient information to justify a warrant for the arrest of someone? I hope that the noble Baroness understands the question.
Baroness Randerson
It is my understanding that inquiries were made with the PSNI as to whether the people on the list were wanted for specific offences. However, it is important that this will be examined by the inquiry, which will examine the nature of the whole process, and we will get far more detailed answers than that as a result of the inquiry.
I was saying to noble Lords that people who receive such letters should not consider them to be an amnesty. On the basis that those were simply factual letters, the current Government agreed in May 2010 that the list of names submitted by Sinn Fein to the previous Administration could continue to be checked. That answers questions from one or two noble Lords.
Lord Cormack
As my noble friend will be so kind as to do some investigating, can she check on one very important thing? There was a civil case in which certain people were judged to be guilty of the Omagh bombing. Can she find out whether letters were sent to any of those people?
Baroness Randerson
I thank my noble friend for that question. I am certain that that will be covered by the inquiry. If it will not, I will of course ensure that he receives an answer to that question in writing.
The Secretary of State has made it clear, and I reinforce it, that if at any time we had been presented with a scheme that amounted to immunity, exemption or amnesty, we would have stopped that scheme, consistent with the opposition of both coalition parties to the previous Government’s Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill 2005, which noble Lords will recall was withdrawn because of the level of opposition to it. We believe in the application of the rule of law and due process, regardless of whether a person is in possession of a letter or will be eligible for early release under the terms of the Belfast agreement. We will take whatever steps are necessary to make it clear to all recipients of letters arising from the scheme, in a manner that will satisfy the courts and the public, that any letters issued cannot be relied upon to avoid questioning or prosecution for offences where information or evidence becomes available now or later. In the light of the error identified in the case of John Downey, the Prime Minister announced—
Baroness O'Loan
The Minister has just said that if information became available now or in future, there would be no impediment to prosecution. What would the situation be in respect of evidence or information which is currently in the possession of police but which has not been processed to an extent that it becomes attributable or linked to those named individuals? Will that information be taken into account or is there a line in the sand, and the only information that can be used to prosecute in the future in respect of these named individuals is that which comes to the attention of the police in the future?
Baroness Randerson
I fear that the noble Baroness will be frustrated by my answer, which is that that will be clearly part of the information that will become public once the inquiry is finished.
I was referring to the error in the case of John Downey. The Prime Minister announced on 27 February that a judge would be appointed to provide an independent review of the administrative scheme, and I have referred to that several times already this afternoon. I wish to set out the terms of reference of the review.
Lord Mawhinney
I thank my noble friend for giving way. In reference to her answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, when this inquiry is held and a Minister is asked the question that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has just posed, is the Minister going to answer that question? In that case, your Lordships’ House is being told that an independent inquiry is worthy of an answer but your Lordships’ House is not.
Baroness Randerson
I am certainly not saying that your Lordships’ House is not worthy of an answer, but I am anxious that the answer should be legally consistent and robust. This situation has arisen in the last week. It is important that the Northern Ireland Office and the Government are able to check their records to look in detail at the history of the scheme. They will do so as part of the evidence that they give to the inquiry. It is obvious that both civil servants and current and previous Ministers will give evidence to this inquiry, and it is important that the overall picture is taken to make sure that it is accurate. I am sure that, once this inquiry reports, noble Lords will want to examine the outcome of that inquiry in considerable detail.
Lord Trimble
The noble Baroness may or may not be aware that for the past few months a Select Committee of this House has been engaged in post-legislative scrutiny of the Inquiries Act 2005, and I am a member of that committee. It has now wound up its proceedings and finalised its report, which will be published on about 11 or 12 March. When that happens, I ask the noble Baroness to draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because there are things that will be in that report that will bear very much on the inquiry that has just been announced, in the light of which it would be wise to make some changes to the way in which the Government are proceeding. I do not want to go into further detail. I happen to know what is in the report, but it is not published, and it is not appropriate for me to say further than this. But I urge the Minister to make sure that the Secretary of State gets her head around some of the significant recommendations in that report.
Baroness Randerson
I thank my noble friend for that comment, and I certainly give that undertaking. It might be useful if we were to have further discussions on that outside this Chamber.
It may be useful if I set out the terms of reference of the review. The aim will be to produce a full public account of the operation and extent of the administrative scheme for OTRs. I think that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, in terms of reassuring her that it will deal with her questions. It will determine whether any letters sent through the scheme contained errors other than, of course, the one that we know about. It will make recommendations, as necessary, on this or related matters that are drawn to the attention of the inquiry. Noble Lords will see that this is a very broad remit.
The persons conducting the review will have full access to all government papers on the operation of the scheme and will be free to interview key individuals in the Civil Service and the police, and any others who are willing to give evidence. The report should be provided to the Secretary of State by the end of May 2014 for full publication.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, who asked a question about the Bloody Sunday investigation, that the police must, of course, carry out investigations when serious offences have been alleged, and the actions of soldiers are not beyond that scrutiny. However, this is an ongoing investigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to disengagement by the Government in relation to Northern Ireland. I emphasise that it was the Northern Ireland parties which invited Dr Haass to help resolve critical issues. However, the Government took a very close and active part in supporting those talks, as they are doing in continuing efforts to resolve the problems. The Secretary of State has spent an enormous amount of time dealing with the parties, and the Irish Government, on Haass issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, pointed out that the recent crisis concerns UK Government procedures and is not a crisis of devolution. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, that the inquiry will reveal how, and in what way, Ministers were involved. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke very powerfully. We recognise the strong feelings about the OTR issue and, indeed, the pain it has caused the families of people who have been murdered over the years. It is important that we bear it in mind that families and friends in Northern Ireland and beyond are suffering as a result of this issue.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
I get the impression that the noble Baroness is coming to the end of her response. She has clarified the issue about the soldiers involved in the 1972 incident in Londonderry, and I understand that answer. However, I still fail to understand the issue of the 187 letters because she was not clear on that. She said that they are not letters of comfort because the people concerned can be further investigated. When I asked her whether she had knowledge of the police investigating any of those 187 cases, she talked vaguely about the Historical Enquiries Team. Therefore, I extend the question: are any of the 187 people currently being investigated by the HET? I hope by now that she has some knowledge of this.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, the House has been extremely flexible about what we have discussed. We are really supposed to be discussing Amendment 1 and whether or not we should adopt it. My noble friend the Minister has answered quite a few questions and we ought to let her wind up this debate and move on.
Baroness Randerson
I will, however, answer the noble Lord’s question. I am not speaking of specific numbers because that is also for the inquiry, but the issue is this: letters were sent following inquiries from a number of people. Those who received a letter that said “There are no known issues against you” were therefore free, if they wished, to return without fear of prosecution. Not everyone who made an inquiry received a letter of that nature. Does that make it clear to the noble Lord? By implication, therefore, there were ongoing inquiries in many cases. That is an important fact that reveals the nature of the exercise; there were and are ongoing inquiries in many cases.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
I am aware of the mood of the House but we need a clear answer and we still have not got one. Out of the 187 cases, are any of them likely to be prosecuted? It is not worthy of this House and it is not worthy of the Minister that we do not have clear answers. I am finished; I have concluded what I was going to say. I apologise, but it must be said.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord is fully aware that I cannot give answers relating to the prosecution of individuals. That is certainly not a matter for a government Minister but one for the police service and prosecuting authorities. It is important that we bear that in mind in this discussion. I want to finish now and make it clear to noble Lords that the inquiry will be wide-ranging, and I have absolute confidence that in the future this House will have the opportunity to debate this issue further. I want, however, to return to the purpose of this discussion and commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) After section 7 insert—
“7A Cross-community support required for Bill altering size of Assembly
(1) The Assembly shall not pass a relevant Bill without cross-community support.
(2) In this section—
“pass”, in relation to a Bill, means pass at the stage in the Assembly’s proceedings at which the Bill falls finally to be passed or rejected;
“relevant Bill” means a Bill containing a provision which deals with a matter falling within a description specified in paragraph 7A of Schedule 3 (size of Assembly).”
( ) In section 14 (submission by Secretary of State), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State shall not submit a Bill for Royal Assent if the Assembly has passed the Bill in contravention of section 7A (cross-community support required for Bill altering size of Assembly).”
( ) In section 53(3)(b) (agreements etc by person participating in Councils), after “section” insert “7A,”.”
Lord Empey
“Protection of opposition status in the Assembly
After section 41(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (standing orders) there is inserted—“(3) Following a request to do so arising from a resolution of the Assembly, the Secretary of State may amend this section by order to make provision for the Secretary of State’s consent to be required (in addition to cross-community support) prior to the repeal of any standing orders that provide for official opposition status to be allocated to any party which is not a part of the Executive.””
Lord Empey
My Lords, I did not in my remarks on the previous group of amendments make any reference to the issues pertaining to the on-the-runs and the general conduct of government. Given that, perhaps I may be permitted some latitude.
This amendment is an attempt to accept and acknowledge the concerns of the government and opposition Front Bench that earlier amendments on the subject of opposition status would interfere with the internal affairs of the Assembly, which already had powers at its disposal if it wished to have an Opposition. However, it was acknowledged by the Minister that there were anxieties and concerns that should the Assembly provide an Opposition, that Opposition’s powers would of course be open to change and amendment by the Assembly without any guarantees being provided for the people who sought that status. The amendment asks for guarantees to be provided only if the Secretary of State was asked to do so by the Assembly. Therefore no offence is done to Sewel, and no direct interference is done to the Assembly. Indeed, only upon a request being received would this amendment take effect.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He refers to the potential crisis that unfolded last week. I am sure he accepts that the crisis has not gone away; rather, I suspect that it has been suspended as a result of the Prime Minister’s intervention and his announcement of a judge-led inquiry into the matter. Should that not happen, and should the terms of the inquiry not be satisfactory, then we will go straight back to where we were.
Lord Empey
I think that there is an element of truth in what the noble Lord says, although huge issues relating to the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act surround some of the conditions that were attached by his colleagues to the First Minister’s potential resignation, such as the production of a list of names. Somebody else suggested that the letters be rescinded. They have not been rescinded and I do not believe that they will be. The possession of those letters is the issue. The people who possess them can always go to the court and those Acts will be their defence. I doubt whether a court will overrule that.
In her response to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness talked about people having letters and not being investigated. However, what happens if the evidence that existed when the person received the letter is subsequently capable of further interpretation either by scientific advance or other material? What impact is that going to have on those letters, and will it be a satisfactory defence for the people who hold them?
I return to the amendment. Without doing injury to the devolution settlement, we are trying to signal that, if requested to do so, the Secretary of State would positively respond to the Assembly by providing a guarantee that opposition status could not be arbitrarily changed by the activities of majority parties at some point in the future. The purpose of the amendment is very simple. I would encourage the Assembly to go down the road of creating an Opposition but it still needs that extra guarantee. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that that guarantee is sought by the Assembly. It is much weaker than I would have liked but, nevertheless, it does what it says on the tin. It is a response to a request from the Assembly to the Secretary of State after a cross-community vote. Therefore, I believe that it is perfectly capable and compatible with the settlement that we have before us. I beg to move.
Lord Lexden
My Lords, I have supported my noble friend on previous occasions on which he has brought forward amendments designed to strengthen the constitutional basis on which an Opposition would be established in the Northern Ireland Assembly. As he has explained, this is a more modest, scaled-down version of the amendments that have gone before. It still seeks to give effect to the fundamental principle, which is extremely important, on constitutional grounds, as I have said previously. My noble friend and I have listened to the Government’s view. We have held discussions with the Secretary of State. We have sought to meet the points that have been raised to render this amendment as compatible as possible with the Government’s view of the position. I hope very much at this late stage that my noble friend will be able to indicate the Government’s support for it.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, we come to an issue which was discussed at Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and now again at Third Reading. The creation of an Opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly already has been discussed extensively at every stage of this Bill but I need to apologise if my remarks sound repetitive. I maintain the position that the Opposition have held before. This amendment acknowledges the powers of the Assembly regarding an Opposition. Behind it there is an understandable concern to prevent the Assembly withdrawing anything it were to grant. However, as I have said so many times before, the Northern Ireland Assembly is a special creation designed to have as many representatives of the community in different shades as possible. It is not the time for this amendment.
I repeat that unfortunately this is not the time to accept this amendment. In June 2013, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee concluded that, as yet, no cross-community consensus had been reached. This followed a government consultation in 2012 that reached the same conclusions. The Assembly must reach a cross-community consensus on the creation of an Opposition before Parliament can consider legislating in this way. Consensus cannot be created retrospectively as this amendment would seek to do. It is for the Assembly to make the first moves towards creating an Opposition.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
The issue is about having an Opposition. Should it be our Parliament making this decision or should it be by consensus within the Northern Ireland Assembly? In taking the latter position, the Government are asking some of the five main political parties in Northern Ireland, all of which are in the Government, to resign to become the Opposition. What incentive is there for any of the five parties to resign from the Government? The answer is none: they will never reach a consensus to have an Opposition.
Lord McAvoy
I take a slightly more optimistic view. Whether I have that view or not, the fact of life is that this is for the Assembly. As I mention that, I notice the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has a smile of experience on his face. I hesitate to say this but it is not yet in the tradition of this Parliament, although I hope that we are on the road to it. Surely the latest stramash—the incident of last week—shows that we are not there yet. But we are on the road and we should be going there.
Lord Empey
I thank the noble Lord. I just get the impression that he is looking at a different amendment. The first line states:
“Following a request to do so arising from a resolution of the Assembly”.
Whether there is a consensus currently or not is irrelevant. Such a request could come only when there is consensus. The amendment refers to “following a request” from the Assembly. Therefore, it can come only when such a consensus is reached.
Lord McAvoy
The noble Lord is taking great care to quote me but I must remind him of the sentence that I used; namely, that consensus cannot be treated retrospectively, as this amendment would seek to do. It deals with a situation that has not yet been created. I hope that we are still on the road to a continued normalisation of politics.
Lord Empey
The noble Lord has just said that we do not want retrospectively to accept something. We have just passed an amendment anticipating something that the Assembly might do in the future; that is, decide to reduce its size. It is the same thing.
Lord McAvoy
It is a matter of judgment as to whether one takes that point of view or not. I do not share the noble Lord’s point of view. I still insist that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland are not ready yet. I am repeating myself, although I was trying not to. Last week, I referred to the fact that we are still on that rocky road. This amendment does not have the support of the Opposition.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his introductory speech. I want to deal briefly with the points he made about the letters that were sent. Perhaps I may say yet again that because these were purely factual letters, they were of course non-statutory. Therefore, they were not the subject of any formal transfer provisions in the legislation that accompanied devolution in 2010. The noble Lord asked questions about further evidence and how it would be treated. I refer him to my earlier answer to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, because it is important we remember that this is the subject of part of the inquiry.
As I have said previously, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and my noble friend Lord Lexden, have done us a great service in raising the profile of this issue through the various amendments that have been tabled. At Report, I indicated that the Government would consider the matter further and set out their position at Third Reading. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lords but we will not be supporting this amendment. As I have said previously, the creation of opportunities for responsible opposition in the Assembly would be a progressive step. As a Member of the Government here in Westminster I know only too well how much an Opposition can keep us on our toes. I think that noble Lords have illustrated that point very effectively during the passage of this Bill. It would be a welcome development if similar arrangements were put in place in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Assembly’s reputation would be enhanced if that were to happen.
We are, however, talking about the Assembly’s internal procedures and it is important that we do not make changes to those without, at the least, having consulted the Assembly. I know that I have mentioned this previously but the Government consider that it is important that the Assembly should be consulted. “Consulted” implies that one would take account of their expressed view.
In previous debates, it was noted that the Assembly could provide for an Opposition through its existing standing orders. It was also noted that the rights accorded to an Opposition created in this way could be revoked at the behest of the largest parties in the Assembly. It is right and proper that any Opposition in the Assembly should have the ability to carry out their functions without fear of losing their status by virtue of having challenged the Executive. It is also right that opposition parties should have sufficient status if they are to be truly effective in holding the Executive to account. To the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, who asked what incentive there was to become a member of the Opposition, I say that the original amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, envisaged the potential status that would come to opposition parties: that would be part of the incentive.
The noble Lord’s amendment attempts to offer a safeguard in the shape of the Secretary of State’s involvement. I pay tribute to the effort that the noble Lord has expended in refining his successive amendments to the Bill. However, we still do not believe that this amendment is the appropriate means of ensuring more effective opposition. We believe that it would be inappropriate in any circumstances for the Secretary of State to have such a direct role in the internal procedures of the Assembly, as envisaged in the amendment—the more so when the Assembly, as I said, has not been consulted.
The noble Lord will point out that his amendment would allow no role to the Secretary of State unless the Assembly took the first step. Even so, given that the Assembly has not been consulted, our taking this step now could be misunderstood by at least some in Belfast as hostile interference in the Assembly’s procedures. The consequences of that would be negative for the long-term prospects of facilitating opposition. As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, there has been discussion of this in recent years in the Assembly, and there was no consensus. I will add that we also see technical difficulties with this amendment. I would not normally draw attention to them, but we are now at the stage where such difficulties cannot be remedied.
I welcome the comment in Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that his party was willing to support additional resources and speaking time for genuine opposition. I hope that his party will deliver on this commitment and that other parties in the Assembly will share that view. I am also encouraged by the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by Mr John McCallister in the Assembly, and I hope that it will spur more debate. I hope that the Assembly, when it debates the Bill, will take cognisance of the various points that have been raised here.
In the mean time, the Government will impress on the parties in Northern Ireland their desire to see an effective Opposition in the Assembly and will consider ways in which we might do so. I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured that this is an issue that the Government take seriously and on which we hope to see real and meaningful progress in future. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, it is almost as if one is answering a debate on an amendment that one has not actually tabled. The amendment is based on the assumption that the Assembly is the initiator. That was to ensure that no harm would be done to the convention. The Minister also said that of course the Assembly has not been consulted. That is a fair point. However, neither has it been consulted—to my knowledge —about reducing in size to 90. It has not been consulted —nor did it seek to be—on the content of the next two amendments. It appears that we have a law for one process and a totally different law for another.
That is hardly surprising, and dare I say to the Minister—although it is not her responsibility—that the one big thing that the Assembly was not consulted about was what was going on behind its back. That is the elephant in the room, and has been since last week. One can be very picky about what one decides to use as a mechanism for saying that one does not want to do something, but I have to say that the Minister’s arguments were not convincing.
On the technical aspects of the amendment, I accept that there is an issue. One understands that those of us in your Lordships’ House have only limited resources to table amendments; we do not have the power of the Government. The Minister made it very clear in her closing remarks in Committee that she and the Government acknowledged that there was a genuine concern that an Opposition born exclusively out of the Assembly changing its standing orders would be vulnerable. I feel that that point at least has come across. On whether this is the right mechanism to deal with the issue, we have an open mind.
The Minister also indicated that the Government were going to set out ideas on how the matter could be addressed. So far, those have not been set out. I hope that the Minister will shortly be in a position, through the Secretary of State, to set out the Government’s proposals. Like so many other things regarding change, they are all stalled and going nowhere.
If we have done nothing else, we have raised the profile of the issue. It will not go away. I think that the necessity to have a guarantee that an Opposition cannot be abused by a majority in the Assembly has been accepted by the Minister. Of course, I acknowledge that there are technical issues, to which she correctly drew attention. On that basis, and not on the basis that the amendment does any harm or ill to the Assembly, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) Section 4 of that Act (transferred, excepted and reserved matters) is amended as follows.
“( ) In subsection (2), for “and (3)” substitute “to (3D)”.
“( ) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of an Order amending paragraph 16 of Schedule 3 (Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland) unless the Secretary of State has, at least three months before laying the draft, laid a report before Parliament.
(3B) The report under subsection (3A) must set out the Secretary of State’s view of the effect (if any) that the Order would have on—
(a) the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland;(b) the application of the principle that persons should be selected for appointment to the Northern Ireland Civil Service on merit on the basis of fair and open competition; and(c) the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.”.”
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, the amendment refers to the appointment of Civil Service Commissioners. At present, that is an excepted matter and this function is exercised by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty. The functions and procedures of the Civil Service Commissioners are currently reserved matters.
Northern Ireland has had its own Civil Service since the 1920s. This was referred to in our previous debate. It is quite distinct from the Home Civil Service that serves the Westminster Government and the Scottish and Welsh Administrations. The Northern Ireland Civil Service itself is and always has been a devolved matter, but a decision was made in 1998 not to devolve the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland for the time being. They, like their Whitehall counterparts, are responsible for ensuring that appointments to the Northern Ireland Civil Service are made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition.
Clause 10 moves the appointment of the commissioners from the “excepted” category in Schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to the “reserved” category. Appointment of the commissioners would then be in the same category as their functions and procedures. The Bill does not propose any immediate devolution of these responsibilities. The change it makes in constitutional categories opens the way to devolution at some future point following votes in the Northern Ireland Assembly and here.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the discussions on this matter. The language that she is now putting before the House is better than the language we had before. However, I remain uneasy about the necessity for this provision at all. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to a spirit which runs throughout the Bill, of a certain disconnectedness from the affairs of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has also raised issues about elements within the Bill for which there is no obvious hunger in Northern Ireland. This is one of them. I am unaware of any particular local pressure, inside or outside the Assembly, on this point.
None the less, if there is to be devolution in this area, it is important to send a signal. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for meeting me and for having discussions with other noble Lords who are concerned about this matter. I am also very grateful to her officials for the work that they put in on this. At least now we are sending a signal that this Parliament believes, in principle, in the importance of the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners and that appointment to the Northern Ireland Civil Service should be on an impartial basis and on the grounds of merit. It is important that a clear signal should continue to be sent out by Parliament on this point. It is certainly clearer in the language that the Government are currently offering than it was when the Bill first came before this Chamber. I thank the noble Baroness for her help in this matter.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend. In Committee and on Report I put my name to an amendment which was originally piloted by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because of our concern about the impact at home in Northern Ireland. A number of things that my noble friend has said, and which are in the amendment, are extremely helpful. First, there is the fact that the Secretary of State would be required to produce a report. The contents required to be in the report are also spelt out, as is the fact that it would have to be done three months beforehand. Furthermore, my noble friend has given undertakings that if we find ourselves in that situation, the Government will facilitate the opportunity for debates on the report in this House and in another place, and will take account of the content of those debates. That is a very helpful undertaking.
I think that my noble friend has also indicated something which goes a little further and which I really welcome—that any expectation that the Northern Ireland Executive might have that such legislation will be passed here will to some extent depend on whether there has been demonstrable progress on the Northern Ireland Civil Service rules and bringing them up to date with the arrangements on this side of the water. I am rather encouraged by that because one of the concerns that I expressed at a previous stage was that the Civil Service in Northern Ireland—for which I have enormous respect—has not necessarily kept up with some of the progress on this side of the water as quickly as it might have done. My noble friend has indicated—not just in the amendment but in her undertakings and her description of the amendment—that this could be a very helpful lever if we come to a time when the Northern Ireland Executive were eager to make progress in the direction of the amendment and this clause in the Bill.
Not only have the Minister and her officials listened, taken account of what was said and obviously consulted the Secretary of State but there has been a very positive response. I welcome that and I certainly support her amendment.
Lord Empey
My Lords, I am glad that we brought this matter forward for discussion. There is no doubt that the proposals in front of us are infinitely better than the ones that were in the Bill as originally drafted. However, I am still not clear what the driving force behind this is. It was left as an excepted matter quite deliberately and for very good reasons, and in my opinion those reasons are as valid today as they were then. It would be impossible for me to avoid pointing out to the noble Baroness that there has been no consultation with the Assembly on this, and it is not an issue that has any traction except within the small group of people who are directly affected. But the proposals in front of us today are a lot better than what was there before. Some protections have been put in. I am quite sure that reference to the 2010 Act could very well have been the mechanism to sort the whole thing out at the end of the day. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Baroness for listening to us and for acting on what has been said. At least we have put in some protections that were not there before and, I hope, will be of benefit in the long term. On that basis, I support the amendment.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I was greatly encouraged by the Minister’s offer when we previously debated this matter to have conversations with those of your Lordships who had taken part in the earlier debate on this subject. It is perfectly clear that, unlike with Amendment 1, we are not talking about a secret deal. There has clearly been openness in discussing this. It has obviously been extremely constructive. I infer that there is approval of where we now are.
I have only one tiny niggle. I hold no proxy whatever for the noble Lord, Lord Butler, but those who have been taking part in these debates will recall that, in our most recent discussion of this subject, he raised the question of why the Government appear to have resiled from the position that the Minister had expressed in Committee. Is the Minister confident that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is now satisfied—or would have been satisfied, had he been here—by what she said in moving the amendment?
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, at the risk of upsetting the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I join him in supporting this amendment. It would have been a lot better if we had discussed this on Report but the flexibility shown by the Minister, referred to by other noble Lords, indicates that once again there has been a success in talking to people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay a report in Parliament at least three months prior to bringing any order on the devolution of responsibilities in respect of the Civil Service Commissioners. The report should set out the Secretary of State’s view of the effect such an order would have on the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, including the merit principle for appointments and the independence of the Civil Service Commissioners. The amendment marks a move towards ensuring the impartiality of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and we welcome it.
There are key differences between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Westminster Civil Service. Senior civil servants in Northern Ireland have a higher profile than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is partly because, particularly when the Assembly has been suspended or there have been different governance arrangements, it has often been a civil servant who has undertaken the role that Ministers have here in defending or promoting policies and engaging with the public. The difference is cultural and practical. Due to these marked differences, the Northern Ireland Civil Service would benefit from a requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a report that outlines the effect such an order would have on the impartiality of the Civil Service, including the merit principle for appointments and independence of the Civil Service Commissioners. I am delighted to welcome the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.
Baroness Randerson
I thank noble Lords for their comments. Specifically, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bew, for the very constructive comments he has made on this throughout. My response to his specific question is that so much of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is already either devolved or reserved and this was the one aspect that was still within the purview of the UK Government. Therefore, it is the logical next step to put this in the same category as the procedures and functions of the Civil Service Commissioners.
I say to my noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that there are now strong safeguards on the condition and position of the Civil Service Commissioners. Indeed, this could be a real improvement on the status quo, and it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in an earlier debate. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has not pursued those issues with me directly but I hope that he is now content, particularly because of the commitment in this amendment to provide for a debate on the Secretary of State’s report. That ensures that the views of noble Lords who have a particular interest in this issue will be heard. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Randerson
“(aa) in Part VII, sections 68 to 69A, 69C to 70, 71(2A) to (2C) and Schedule 7;”.”
Baroness Randerson
Noble Lords will probably be relieved to hear that my comments on this amendment will be rather briefer than they were on the previous one on the Civil Service Commissioners because there are considerable parallels between the two.
Serious concerns were expressed in our earlier debates about the possibility of devolving responsibility for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. These concerns were in many respects analogous to those that were outlined concerning the Civil Service Commissioners. In this case, too, we believe that those concerns deserve a very serious response. We have revised our approach in a similar way, so, as I said, I will make my comments as brief as is in accordance with being clear—I hope. As with the Civil Service Commissioners, I outlined a possible approach on Report. We have taken that approach substantially further in the amendments we have now tabled.
To recap, responsibility for appointments to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is currently an excepted matter, as are the commission’s functions. Clause 11 moves these responsibilities from the “excepted” to the “reserved” category. The Bill does not, however, propose the devolution of these responsibilities at this time. In previous debates, concerns were expressed in respect of the commission’s independence should it ultimately be devolved. Your Lordships regard this as being of great importance. We share those concerns and are clear that they must be addressed before devolution. I indicated previously that any future devolution of responsibility for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would be subject to public consultation. That remains the case.
These amendments require the Secretary of State to lay a report in Parliament at least three months prior to bringing any order on the devolution of responsibilities in respect of the Human Rights Commission. As I have set out in relation to previous amendments, that is intended to ensure that there is adequate time for debate and for noble Lords to influence the approach being taken in Belfast before a devolution order is laid. As before, we undertake to facilitate a debate at that point. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a reasonable approach to ensure proper consideration and scrutiny.
These amendments would require that the Secretary of State’s report should set out the effect, in her view, that such an order would have on the commission’s independence—which is of cardinal importance to its work. I recognise the emphasis that the commission places on its compliance with international best practice, currently embodied in the Paris and Belgrade principles. My noble friend Lord Alderdice referred to this in speaking to his amendment on Report. To reflect these concerns, this amendment would also require the Secretary of State to set out in her report the effect, in her view, of devolution on the commission’s compliance with internationally accepted principles in respect of national human rights institutions.
An important issue bearing on the independence of the commission, and dealt with in the principles, is the relationship of the commission and the Northern Ireland Assembly. These amendments would therefore require the Secretary of State in her report also to address the effect of devolution on that relationship. I hope noble Lords will feel we have reflected their concerns expressed here in debate and are able to support this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I again welcome the amendments brought forward by my noble friend the Minister. I accept what she said about this device or resolution being similar to that in the previous question on the Civil Service Commissioners. However, the matter at issue here is very different and one of much more substantial importance. Indeed, the Minister will recall that at Second Reading this issue was one of two that I identified as being absolutely critical. In Committee, I spoke against the question that the clause should stand part of the Bill. On Report, I came back with an amendment on the question and I am very grateful to my noble friend the Secretary of State and her officials for being prepared to engage on the question.
I do not want to repeat what I said before but I point out the signal importance of this issue and its difference from the previous one. Right back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was pressure in Northern Ireland for a Human Rights Commission. In 1973, when the legislation was passed, a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was established. That was not sufficient but it was the best that could be achieved at that particular time. It produced some very worthwhile reports, some of which were acted upon in part and some more fully. Some very distinguished colleagues, not least my predecessor as leader of the Alliance Party, Sir Oliver Napier, was a chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Eventually, we moved on. We had a Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland. The point is that this is not something that came in with the Good Friday agreement. It did not arise lately. There was absolutely critical demand and pressure for it from the 1960s and onwards. It continues to be of signal importance.
In her amendment, my noble friend has very helpfully identified a similar procedure to the previous issue. The Secretary of State would, at least three months in advance, bring forward a report identifying three very important issues: the independence of the Human Rights Commission, its relationship with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the international commitments and responsibilities of Her Majesty’s Government. That is extremely good. She has also said, again very helpfully, that in the event that your Lordships’ House wanted to debate such a report, it would be given an opportunity by the Government to do that, and that the content of that debate would be taken seriously in the construction of the draft legislation. That is all extremely helpful and very welcome.
However, I feel strongly about the significance of this issue. If the Government did not bring forward a satisfactory report or set of proposals, this is of such significance that it is the kind of thing that one would be prepared to vote down. Not many things come forward here in terms of Orders in Council where your Lordships’ House is called on to use what we might describe as the politically nuclear option. This matter of the Human Rights Commission is of such importance that a Government—not just this one; it is likely that a subsequent Government might find themselves in this position—should not be under any illusion that if this matter were to come forward in an unsatisfactory way, they would face very serious opposition. I would be part of that opposition.
My noble friend has listened seriously to the concerns of the moment. The Government are clearly intent on making this facility available to the Northern Ireland Executive, whether or not they wish to take that up. The Minister has listened seriously and there has been a reasonable response. If all the things in this amendment are fulfilled as she described I would be more optimistic that a positive outcome might be possible. On that basis, I support her amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I think I support the amendment. I see that it takes account of the comments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It would help if the Minister could give the House one assurance—I do not know whether she can.
New subsection (3D)(b) refers to,
“the application of internationally accepted principles relating to national human rights institutions”.
That is exactly the right criterion. I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the UK. In the UK we are in an exceptional position in that three human rights bodies are brigaded together for the purpose of receiving a certain status. I am happy to say that at present it is an A status. Our fates are bound together in that way. It would be extremely important to be clear about the implications of this move to a new status for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. We must take into account the fact that if that misfired it could bring down the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission. Could the Minister comment on that? It would be helpful to know that, in considering this move, that particular set of risks would also be considered.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, the Opposition support this amendment and commend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for their discussions and decision to bring it forward. Everyone agrees about the fundamental importance of human rights to the exercise of devolved government in Northern Ireland. It is also agreed that this is ensured through the independence of the Human Rights Commission and the impartial nature of its work. The preservation of this impartiality will be foremost in discussions when we come to actually devolve these powers. The Government’s amendments mark a move in the right direction to enable that. They have our full support.
Baroness Randerson
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his support for this amendment and amendments moved throughout this afternoon. To answer my noble friend Lord Alderdice, we believe we have now taken a belt-and-braces approach to this issue. We accept its considerable importance but surely it is of the same order of importance to Northern Ireland as policing and justice, both of which have been successfully devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government hear my noble friend’s concerns and take note. We will certainly bear in mind that his intention would be to vote against anything that did not come up to what he judged to be the appropriate approach.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, we are well aware of the impact of one human rights institution on another in terms of their reputation. That is one reason why we may be looking towards the Scottish model, because it has been successful in providing answerability to the Scottish Parliament. Although that is not absolutely specified in the report that the Secretary of State would make to Parliament, it is in the amendment as something of which account has to be taken.
A future Government would be mindful, of course, of the risks to the UK’s reputation in human rights issues as a whole. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Randerson
“( ) In section 4 of that Act (transferred, excepted and reserved matters), after subsection (3B) (as inserted by section 10) insert—
“(3C) The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of an Order amending paragraph 42(aa) of Schedule 3 (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission) unless the Secretary of State has, at least three months before laying the draft, laid a report before Parliament.
(3D) The report under subsection (3C) must set out the Secretary of State’s view of the effect (if any) that the Order would have on—
(a) the independence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;(b) the application of internationally accepted principles relating to national human rights institutions; and(c) the relationship between the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Assembly.”.”
Baroness Randerson
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, Clause 24 amends an order-making power already passed in the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 to allow us to take forward by order the changes to the new biometric framework in the reserved and excepted fields, which the Northern Ireland Department of Justice could not legislate for within its Criminal Justice Bill, which received Royal Assent in April 2013. It will allow us to bring the position in Northern Ireland with regard to the retention, use and destruction of biometric data in the interests of national security, or for the purposes of a terrorist investigation, into line with that in Great Britain.
The amendment makes a technical change to the commencement of Clause 24. As the Bill is drafted, the clause would come into force on the day the Act is passed. However, the order-making power in the Protection of Freedoms Act—paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 —is not yet in force. The proposed change to commencement is intended to avoid a situation where the amendment to the order-making power in Clause 24 comes into force before the power itself, which would have no practical effect and which I understand is technically undesirable. This is a technical change to the clause which I hope that the House will feel able to support, as it is not an issue that has raised concern previously.
Before I sit down, I take this opportunity to thank all those who have participated in debate on the Bill. Any Minister attempting to shepherd a Bill through this House feels some trepidation because of the great reservoir of expertise and experience here. As a relative newcomer to Northern Ireland, I was certainly very aware that I could not hope to match the knowledge of some noble Lords, who have first-hand experience of many of the events which led to the settlement we have today.
I also want to thank the Bill team and other Northern Ireland Office officials, who have worked so hard on the Bill and have made huge efforts to address and take account of the concerns raised by noble Lords in debate. I am grateful for the patience and the willingness that has been shown by noble Lords to attend not only debates but the many meetings we have organised outside this Chamber. I respect the persistence that has been evident in raising those issues of most concern. I believe that the Bill has been greatly improved as a result of our dialogue.
We have developed our understanding of some of the issues which set the context for this Bill: the nature of devolution; the limits of government power and influence in devolved matters; the operation of the agreements which established the current settlement in Northern Ireland; and the scope for development of those institutions. Those debates are important, not just for Northern Ireland, but for our constitution throughout the UK.
I introduced this Bill on a note of optimism as a Bill for more normal times. It is the first Bill in recent times not to have been subject to emergency procedures in Northern Ireland. I cannot conclude our debate without acknowledging the extent to which political peace has been challenged, not least by the events of the past week. It has been a difficult time for Northern Ireland, particularly for those who have suffered as a result of the atrocities of the past. Our thoughts must be with them at this time.
I believe that there is still reason for cautious optimism. Despite the real anger and hurt felt by many on both sides of the community, the devolved institutions have avoided crisis and devolved government continues. This underlines the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland as a result of the peace process. While ensuring that we deal properly with the past, it remains essential that our determination to build a shared and prosperous future in Northern Ireland is unwavering.
The Bill is, I believe, a modest way of making a contribution to fulfilling that objective, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, I do not want to address the technical aspects of the amendment, but I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying something about my appreciation of and gratitude to my noble friend Lady Randerson. Perhaps it is because of her distinguished service and experience in the Welsh Assembly, perhaps it is just because of the person that she is, perhaps it is because of the conscientious way in which she approaches her work, but, for whatever reason, she has shown great sensitivity to the difficult issues in devolution in a provincial part of our United Kingdom and to the complexity of the issues concerned. Nowhere was this better shown than in your Lordships’ House today, where she dealt with such extraordinary patience with all the difficulties, which were not immediately difficulties of the Bill, but were certainly difficulties with the context in which the Bill is passing in Northern Ireland. The patience that she showed in her responses reminded me a little of George Mitchell and the sort of patience that he had to show at a much earlier stage in the whole process. She has been an exemplar in that regard.
It is also the case that no predecessor for a very long time has had to take a Bill on Northern Ireland here through all the normal stages and passage of time. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, nodding his head, because he was very familiar with those times and that work in Northern Ireland. The Minister, her officials and, indeed, the Secretary of State in the other place, have listened carefully and responded as far as they felt able. Even to our questions today, I think that she responded as far as it was possible to do given the difficulties and complexity of the problem. I express my sincere appreciation for all that she has done, in the knowledge that she will continue to serve in this House for Northern Ireland—and for other places, but from Northern Ireland’s perspective I express my appreciation.
Lord McAvoy
My Lords, I apologise for my overeagerness, especially to support the Government in principle. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, this is a technical amendment, it is welcome and I have no intention of going into the fine detail that the Minister had to in introducing it. I also join in commending her for her attitude throughout the process in listening and making changes. I also pay tribute to the officials of her office for the way that they have responded to the various processes within the procedure.
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, I also pay tribute to the expertise existing in this Chamber. I have been involved in Northern Ireland for a long time, back and forward, off and on. I know how she felt about having some trepidation in getting involved in a Bill with all the expertise around this House. It has been a success for her, a success for this House in processing the Bill in the way that we have, especially with the events of the past week, and we support the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
“(2A) If paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 comes into force on a day after that on which this Act is passed, section 24 comes into force immediately after that paragraph comes into force.”
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, I would like to make a brief footnote to the debates that we have just had. My noble friend Lord Mawhinney made reference in debate on Amendment 1 to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater and myself. I did not intervene in that debate, especially on the subject of secret deals, but certainly my basic attitude to such matters was learnt at my mother’s knee. I mention this because I recall that the Reith lectures given by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, treated on the same matter. It is happy that she is here so that she can reprove me if I misrepresent her. Her view on behaviour was that those people with whom one has contact react and respond to the way that you treat them. If you communicate liking, they are likely to behave in a likeable manner while if you show that you trust them, they are likely to behave in a trustworthy manner. In both these examples, the converse is true. Secret deals are therefore fundamentally counter- productive. I once worked for a great American who taught me that the strongest argument against falsehoods is that the truth is much easier to remember. I am not seeking a response.
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
19:16 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“(b) after subsection (5) insert—“(6) The Commission may give a direction under this subsection if the Commission reasonably believe that a person or organisation who does not hold a remote gambling licence is providing remote gambling services in the United Kingdom.
(7) A direction under subsection (6) may be given to—
(a) a particular person operating in the financial sector,(b) any description of persons operating in that sector, or(c) all persons operating in that sector.(8) A direction under subsection (6) may require a relevant person not to enter into or continue to participate in—
(a) a specified transaction or business relationship with a designated person,(b) a specified description of transactions or business relationships with a designated person, or(c) any transaction or business relationship with a designated person.(9) Any reference in this section to a person operating in the financial sector is to a credit or financial institution that—
(a) is a United Kingdom person, or(b) is acting in the course of a business carried on by it in the United Kingdom.(10) In this section—
“credit institution” and “financial institution” have the meanings given in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008;
“designated person”, in relation to a direction, means any of the persons in relation to whom the direction is given;
“relevant person”, in relation to a direction, means any of the persons to whom the direction is given.””
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It would give the Gambling Commission a discretionary power to block financial transactions between people living in the UK and online gambling websites that have not secured a UK Gambling Commission licence. The aim is to prevent funds being transferred to illegal operators, thereby creating a disincentive both to the company to operate illegally and to UK gamblers, who will find it much easier to go to the many licensed operators available.
The Government have argued that this Bill is about consumer protection. On 19 November the Minister, Helen Grant, said that the new licensing proposals address,
“the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to enhance consumer protection by ensuring that all operators offering remote gambling in Britain are regulated by the Gambling Commission, whether they are based in Britain or overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill Committee, 19/11/13; col. 74.]
At first glance, this seems absolutely right because the Bill, for the very first time, requires all online gambling providers based outside the UK who want to access the UK market to get a UK Gambling Commission licence. For this to constitute a meaningful bid for greater protection, however, it must be connected to a parallel provision preventing those providers which do not have a licence from selling to UK consumers. The Bill before us contains no such provision. In the absence of a credible enforcement mechanism, the primary implications of the Bill are twofold.
First, there would be significant liberalisation of online gambling advertising. At present, only providers located in a limited number of whitelisted and European Economic Area jurisdictions can advertise in the UK. However, under the Bill any provider based anywhere in the UK will be able to advertise in the UK, so long as they get a UK Gambling Commission licence. This significantly widens the scope for online gambling advertising. Not only that: it would be advertising liberalisation for a form of gambling which is associated with a significantly higher problem prevalence figure than gambling generally. The 2010 general problem prevalence figure was 0.9% but it was more than 9% for online on an annual basis and more than 17% on a monthly basis.
The second implication is that of providing a framework for increasing the tax take in co-operation with the 2014 Finance Bill. The 2005 Act created a tax loophole by allowing providers based in EEA or whitelisted jurisdictions still to advertise in the UK. All but one moved to whitelisted jurisdictions under more generous regimes. The Bill corrects this loophole by providing the Treasury with a framework to address the problem. It requires all providers accessing the UK market to get a licence, while the Finance Bill requires all online gambling providers with a UK licence to pay UK tax. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that, as the wife of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have absolutely no problem with seeking to close a tax loophole. However, the good news is that that tax loophole can be closed at the same time as providing a robust enforcement regime that upholds the consumer protection objective set out by Helen Grant. We do not have to choose between one and the other.
The Government have of course sought to argue that they have the necessary enforcement mechanism. At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“Where illegal operators attempt to target British consumers, the Government and the Gambling Commission are confident that action can be taken through existing enforcement mechanisms to disrupt and stop unlawful gambling. These include action on illegal advertising, player education and, ultimately, prosecution”.—[Official Report, 17/12/13; col. 1252.]
The problem with this is that neither clamping down on illegal advertising nor better player protection will prevent illegal operators accessing the UK market. That leaves prosecution but the truth is that the DCMS has already recognised in its remote gambling consultation that prosecution has no teeth. The DCMS said that,
“we recognise that without extra-territorial extent, it will be difficult to actually pursue the offence through the Courts if the operator is located outside Britain”.
Given the clear problems with the enforcement mechanisms highlighted by the Government, it has been clear to me since the first day when the Bill appeared that it is crying out for a proper enforcement mechanism. In this context, as I have said previously, Amendment 1, which gives the Gambling Commission discretionary financial transaction blocking powers to protect UK consumers from transacting with illegal providers, crucially restores integrity to the Bill. Far from being a curious add-on my amendment, in providing a credible enforcement mechanism, is central to the main purpose of the Bill.
When pressed on this point the Government have, until now, always rejected financial transaction blocking on the basis that the evidence is mixed.
Although I readily admit that financial transaction blocking is not 100% successful—very few public policy solutions are—it is my contention that it is the best available enforcement mechanism, and one that would greatly enhance the Bill. In making this case, I want to make some points. First, I shall briefly consider the experiences of other jurisdictions. In the USA, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006 prohibits any person, including a business, engaged in the business of betting or wagering from knowingly accepting payments in connection with the participation of another person in illegal remote gambling. In practice, this means that credit and debit cards and banks do not allow their services to be used in relation to a merchant code associated with remote gambling. This means that if a person tries to gamble on an illegal or unregulated website, they will not be able to transfer funds directly into their gambling account. These merchant codes are used as a matter of course and as part of agreements made between gambling entities and the financial sector.
My conversations with online gambling providers suggest that, while this approach has not been perfect, it has made a very significant positive difference. Indeed, such is its success that other countries have since followed its lead; in Europe the most notable is Norway, as well as France, Belgium and Estonia. Other jurisdictions have also implemented policies that reflect the blocking of the financial flow to illegal websites—for example, in Israel, Turkey, Singapore and Malaysia.
Secondly, having looked at the experience of other jurisdictions, I want to reflect on the appropriateness of financial transaction blocking in a British context. In considering all the jurisdictions that have implemented FTB, it is vital to appreciate that they operate closed or relatively closed markets. For example, the US does not allow remote gambling across state borders or from overseas. Norway, meanwhile, operates an even more restrictive market.
If one operates a closed or relatively closed market, one faces two challenges. First, one has to block lots of transactions. That would not be the case in the UK, where we operate an open market. Then there is a greater incentive in closed or relatively closed markets for punters to seek to evade the blocks than in an open market, where the available odds should be relatively competitive. In a market like the UK, where there is a need for less blocking and where—on the occasions when it is used—financial transaction blocking is more likely to be effective, FTB is likely to be more successful than in the jurisdictions where it has been employed thus far.
Thirdly, mindful of the above, I want to reflect on the huge irony of the position that the Government have adopted. They have rejected financial transaction blocking on the basis that the results are “mixed”, citing instead their preference for prosecution. Given that, while not perfect, FTB has encountered some considerable success, and given that it is more likely to be successful in the UK than in any other jurisdiction where it has been used, I find it a little extraordinary that the Government should reject it in favour of prosecution on the basis that FTB is not perfect. Prosecution is far less likely to be successful than FTB. As we have seen by the Government’s own admission, prosecution does not work. The idea that the UK Government can afford to chase multiple small online providers through the courts of multiple jurisdictions is, surely, fanciful. The providers in question know that the chances of their ever being successfully prosecuted are tiny, a calculated risk that they can afford to take. By contrast, FTB is likely to have a significant deterrent effect on small illegal providers, as the experience of Norway has demonstrated.
Yesterday many noble Lords will have received a letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, that addresses enforcement. The letter says:
“I am pleased to confirm that the Gambling Commission has reached agreement with a number of major payment systems organisations to work together to block financial transactions with unlicensed operators”.
I very much welcome this announcement. It really is quite a turnaround from the suggestion during the earlier stages of the Bill that its enforcement provisions were sufficient. However, just as I highlighted deficiencies in what the Government said during those stages, I feel compelled to do so again today, because while I warmly welcome the announcement I do not believe that it constitutes a credible alternative solution.
The problem is that it pertains to only three payment processes and is voluntary. Of course Visa is a very big player and covers a large part of the financial transaction market, so you might be tempted to conclude that this solution would address a large part of the problem. In reality, though, the market is dynamic, and experience from abroad demonstrates that alternative payment mechanisms spring up to do the job in place of the big names that are persuaded in the name of social responsibility to adopt a different approach on a self-regulatory basis. Thus I am firmly of the opinion that we need the statutory approach of Amendment 1, which applies to all payment mechanisms.
I have heard it said that the Government do not want to accept amendments to the Bill. They contend that it is a simple Bill, with a sharp focus that amendments would only distract from. Far from being a distraction from the main purpose of the Bill, my Amendment 1, by providing a credible enforcement mechanism, is absolutely key to that central purpose. Rather than placing the simple integrity of the Bill in jeopardy, the amendment’s key mission is actually to complete that integrity—to ensure that rather than being half a Bill, alienated from an enforcement mechanism, it is in fact a whole Bill, very much at one with its enforcement mechanism. My modest discretionary financial transaction blocking amendment would restore integrity to the Bill, in my view, something that is urgently needed. I hope that in due course the Government will agree, and I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning on this and many other issues, and particularly on the tenacity with which she is pursuing this topic. I place on the record that we on this side of the House support her in this amendment. Do the Government? We have seen reports over the weekend, amid the most extraordinary amount of material that has been released through papers and articles and by people talking directly to the press, about how keen the Government are to make progress in this area, how shocked they were to discover some of the points that have been made in the noble Baroness’s speech—but had also been raised before in Committee—and how important it was that they should be seen to be taking action. However, talk is not going to get us to where we want to go on this issue, as the noble Baroness has said.
The Bill lacks the capacity to deliver the means to achieve the ends that it sets out very clearly, and with which we agree. There have been very clear calls for strong enforcement measures to accompany the Bill. The Bill may be modest in terms of what it does, but it will be even less effective if it does not have these additional measures. In addition to the points made by the noble Baroness, which I do not wish to repeat because she made a very positive and clear endorsement of the position that she is trying to adopt, we have to have regard to the fact that there will be people inside the industry who will hold licences who deserve to be supported, who are trying to do the right thing and who need to be given a clear endorsement in the Bill that those who are not doing the right thing by the Bill will be prosecuted but will also be made unable to operate by removing their financial support and by ensuring that they cannot connect through the internet.
These are issues that come up in other places. There is obviously a read-across to the field of the protection of children, and therefore it is important that we should begin to think hard about how we work in this world of new technology. As the noble Baroness said, the amendment complements the Bill. Voluntary arrangements, although welcome, will not achieve what we want. They are a step in the right direction, but they are not sufficient. The very idea of relying simply upon prosecution in offshore, foreign territories is absolutely bizarre. If the noble Baroness wants to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.
Viscount Astor (Con)
When my noble friend the Minister replies, will he address two issues that concern me about the amendment? The first is the ability to control what the noble Baroness referred to as illegal websites. It seems to me that websites spring up and have an almost infinite ability to replicate themselves. I am not sure how the Government could control them, even if they wanted to. Secondly, there seems to be evidence in other countries that financial transaction blocking has not been terribly successful. Will the Minister comment on whether that is the case? If we were to have this amendment, it is important that it is workable and would achieve its purpose. Otherwise, we have to look at other alternatives to achieve the same outcome.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 1 because it is of fundamental importance. If this Bill is not endowed with a credible form of enforcement so that unlicensed operators are prevented from accessing the UK market then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has explained, the notion that this Bill is about consumer protection breaks down. Its primary impact will instead be a truly dramatic change to online gambling advertising in the UK.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue throughout the passage of the Bill and particularly for the excellent seminar that she hosted for Peers last week, which was fascinating. It comprised two central presentations, one from the online gambling provider Paddy Power explaining why, from the perspective of online gambling providers, the provision of proper enforcement is absolutely key, and a second presentation from a charity, CARE, whose prime concern is the care of problem gamblers, which also argued passionately for the provision of credible enforcement.
In managing to create a coalition between the online gambling industry and problem gambler charities, the Government have really accomplished quite a feat. On a more serious note, it seems to me that if such disparate groups with such disparate aims and objectives are prepared to come together to present basically the same argument, the Government need to pause and take note. Paddy Power made it very clear that the online gambling industry is growing very quickly right across the world and that there are lots of small providers which will be tempted to access the United Kingdom market without getting a licence. The point was made very powerfully that the Government cannot possibly hope to chase these multiple small providers through the courts of multiple jurisdictions. It would cost far too much and take far too long. The small providers know that the chances of them being prosecuted, let alone convicted, are absolutely tiny and that it is a risk well worth taking.
In this context, the online gambling industry and the charity sector are very clear that financial transaction blocking is the best way forward. The Government, of course, have resisted this argument, claiming that the evidence for FTB is mixed. If by this they mean that it is not 100% successful, then I agree with them, but the notion that in order to be suitable an enforcement mechanism must be 100% effective is problematic for two reasons. First, in my experience, very few public policy solutions can make that claim. Secondly, the enforcement mechanism promoted by the Government—prosecution—is far less likely to be successful than FTB. Of course, I read with interest the letter from the Minister yesterday announcing that, despite earlier statements, the Government have now consented to a self-regulatory approach to prohibiting payments with three providers. That is a very welcome turnaround, but it is not a credible solution. The integrity of this Bill clearly requires a statutory solution that covers all providers.
This Bill has so far travelled from DCMS to the Commons and now through the Lords to Report stage without a single amendment. As a revising Chamber, we are here to detect problems and put them right. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has spotted a fundamental problem. I do not believe that we should allow this Bill to complete its passage through your Lordships’ House without the insertion of the clear enforcement mechanism presented by Amendment 1. I strongly urge noble Lords to support this very important, seminal amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I want to associate myself fully with the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and with the powerful and comprehensive speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in introducing the amendment. I do not intend to repeat the points they made so powerfully, but I shall add a general consideration. With the introduction of the internet, we are living through a revolution that is probably more powerful than the invention of steam power or the internal combustion engine. One does not want to be critical of the many benefits that flow from the internet revolution but it brings with it, at every point, corresponding dangers of which the Government need to be very aware. If in doubt, I would say that the balance of the argument comes down on putting in place powers to regulate and prevent the abuses that the internet can open up. I hope that general consideration will support the specific points so powerfully made in the debate so far.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a wide-ranging and constructive series of discussions as the Bill has progressed to this stage. As we said earlier, this is a small, five-clause Bill focusing on consumer protection. As a result of it, all overseas operators selling to British consumers—around 85% of the market—will be required to hold a British Gambling Commission licence. That will mean that those operators will be subject to robust and consistent regulation and that will increase protection for consumers.
Although it had been introduced with a distinct focus on new licensing and advertising arrangements for remote gambling activities, we have collectively explored a fuller set of related gambling considerations. Noble Lords will have seen some of them announced by the Secretary of State over the weekend. Work which had been ongoing has been catalysed by these debates, in which some very important matters arose, while ensuring that the core of the Bill, which I think I can say is widely supported, can pass into law.
One such issue is in relation to enforcement and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her amendment. It would enable the Gambling Commission to give direction to financial institutions to stop financial transactions with operators which do not hold a Gambling Commission licence. This is known as financial transaction blocking. The Government share the overall objective articulated so clearly by noble Lords, which is at the centre of this amendment, but the Bill must be enforceable. That is central to achieving the consumer protection purposes that lie at the heart of the Bill, which will extend the existing enforcement provisions to offshore operators selling or advertising into the GB market.
The Bill includes three important tools. First, the Gambling Commission can take action against illegal advertising. That is important as advertising is the lifeblood of so many operators. The Bill will make it easier for advertisers to identify what can and what cannot be advertised into the UK. Only lawful gambling may be advertised. Secondly, player education is another important tool. The current system makes it impossible for the Gambling Commission to advise consumers to buy from commission-licensed operators, as operators from anywhere in the world, subject to a range of different regulatory regimes, can transact with consumers in Great Britain. Thirdly, the Gambling Commission has powers to prosecute, so the commission will have the legal powers to pursue any unlicensed operators, wherever they are based. It is also worth noting that, although the collection of tax is a matter for HMRC, it has extensive powers of its own that may be deployed in the case of unlicensed operators, where this is appropriate.
However, alongside this, I can announce a further mechanism. I am pleased to confirm that the Gambling Commission has reached agreement with major payment systems organisations—notably MasterCard, PayPal and Visa Europe—to work together to block financial transactions with unlicensed operators which seek to use these payment systems for illegal purposes. What does this actually mean in practice? It means that when a consumer uses payment facilities for illegal gambling this may amount to a breach of the payment system’s terms and conditions. These require that all transactions must be legal in all applicable jurisdictions. Such a breach may result in the operator having its payment facilities withdrawn by the payment system. This process will disrupt revenue to unlicensed gambling operators selling into our British market.
We have heard the arguments in detail throughout the passage of the Bill as to the effectiveness of financial transaction blocking. We believe that the approach I have just outlined is a good way to test and evaluate this mechanism. The mechanism provides an efficient way of achieving blocking in a single case, which is mostly where we expect this approach will be used. The reason this approach is efficient is that the Gambling Commission has a direct route to the payment organisations and does not need to go through a potentially lengthy and expensive court process.
However, as we have all agreed in this debate, the landscape can change quickly. Technology moves faster than legislation. The nature of these arrangements is such that they will be adaptable and can respond to the very latest developments. That is why the Government believe this is the most appropriate way to proceed: working in partnership with these organisations that share our determination to tackle illegal activity. We want to ensure that the enforcement arrangements continue to be effective and have asked the commission to report on its enforcement activities in relation to remote gambling. The Gambling Commission will provide an assessment of the effectiveness of these arrangements in enforcing the Bill in its annual report to Parliament. The Government and the Gambling Commission will use this to assess the success of this approach and monitor the implementation of the new regime. This will enable the Government to ensure that the Gambling Commission continues to have all the enforcement tools it needs.
I thank the noble Baroness for bringing this issue forward and all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I hope that I have assured the House that the Government’s approach is the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives behind the amendment and does not require legislative change. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate. I also thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who kindly met me yesterday to outline the steps that the Government have now taken to begin to address this problem. I very much welcome, too, the fact that rather than saying that there already are adequate enforcement mechanisms, the Government are now bringing forward, somewhat belatedly, the measures that have been outlined to us today.
However, this really is a classic example of too little, too late. The online gambling providers we have consulted have been clear that, even if you target big transaction-processing companies that currently service the market but do not adopt a more statutory approach that relates to all such companies, gambling transactions will simply migrate to other or new providers. I still believe that the Bill is flawed because of this lack of an enforcement mechanism and because of self-regulatory measures, especially those which relate only to three providers, with no compensation for this. Separated from a proper means of enforcement, the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill is still very much half a Bill.
As other speakers have noted, to date the Bill has passed unamended through the Commons and also until Report stage in the Lords. Increasingly, everyone acknowledges that we are here as a revising Chamber to spot problems and to try and put them right. I would argue that we have identified a significant problem here that cannot be addressed by a voluntary agreement between just these three providers, which may or may not at some future stage give rise to litigation.
We have today the opportunity to address this shortfall. Although I hope very much that the Government will accept other amendments today, I want to take this opportunity to test the opinion of the House.
“Licence compliance, stipulations and control
(1) Notwithstanding the regulation of spread betting by the Financial Conduct Authority, operators licensed for remote gambling by the Gambling Commission shall, to ensure their continued fitness as such, be obliged to comply with Condition 15.1 of the Consolidated Licensing Conditions and Codes of Practice 2011 (or its equivalent from time to time) in relation to all areas of their gambling operations, including spread betting and any other operations not within the jurisdiction of the Gambling Commission.
(2) In the event of any breach of subsection (1) which the Gambling Commission believes calls into question the fitness of the relevant operator, the Gambling Commission may require the operator to provide an explanation of such breach within one month and may, if not satisfied with such explanation, revoke the operator’s licence.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the promotion and upholding of integrity is one of the key functions of all sports governing bodies and event organisers. The whole concept of sport is based on what is described as fair competition between participants under agreed rules. A vital principle for any sport is that all its participants are competing to win and that its officials are honest, and are seen to be so.
This amendment deals with a situation which could not have been forecast when the Gambling Act 2005 passed through this House and into law. At that time, the idea that people would somehow be able to vote without ever being close to or involved in a game was not thought of as likely to happen, and we certainly did not see, or have evidence to suggest that we had seen, any ideas that people involved in the betting industry—not the industry as a whole—might seek to use means to try to fix matches. The situation that emerged out of the 2005 Act is not one that we could have predicted; times have moved on. Therefore, we need to think hard about how to protect sports integrity as we move forward. Those who seek to influence the outcome or progress of sports events to secure rewards through betting undermine the very principles that I have been talking about. Worse than that, any suspicion that that is happening is almost as bad as the event itself happening. So some action needs to be taken.
The Government have been working with the Gambling Commission—and I give them credit for this—on how best to ensure that information flow is made available to those with responsibilities in this area. As a result, there is a series of regulations that operate, particularly licence condition 15.1, which ensures that information about practices that might be redolent of an event that has been fixed are brought quickly to the attention of the sports governing bodies and authorities so that action, if necessary, can be taken.
During the passage of the Bill in another place, my colleague in the Commons, Mr Clive Efford, spotted a gap in the overall approach being taken here, which is that the responsibility for spread betting is and continues to be with the FCA, which does not have the licence conditions—including licence condition 15.1—that apply to those organisations registered through the Gambling Commission itself. However, in the period since then there have been meetings and discussions, and I am very pleased that we have now got to a situation where, in respect of those bodies that are involved in regulating sports events, which include spread betting operated under the auspices of the FCA, the effect will be that licence condition 15.1 will apply, so that all information can be channelled to those who require it in a way that will allow them quickly to take action if required. This is terrific—and, if I am going to hear that from the other side, we will welcome it. It may influence how we take forward this amendment.
However, in closing I make one point. The situation that we will find ourselves in if what I hope is the case comes through is that those in scope to the Gambling Commission will have the effect of licence condition 15.1 applied to them. But if there were a situation in which a spread betting organisation were to start taking bets on gambling activity but was not in scope to the Gambling Commission, the information flows would be interrupted. Can the Minister reflect on that point and give us some information, if he has it, on that issue? Subject to hearing more about that, I am very happy to move this amendment and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, this amendment returns us to an issue that has already received considerable scrutiny. As we have heard, it is vital that national sports governing bodies receive information and intelligence about any untoward betting patterns as a matter of urgency so that they have the greatest opportunity to prevent corrupt activities and behaviour. Spread betting needs to be regulated just as effectively as fixed odds betting. Yesterday, the Minister informed noble Lords that the Gambling Commission is to extend the remit of its licensing code 15.1 to include spread betting in its information reporting requirements, as is placed on those who have a fixed odds betting licence. I commend this remit, because it will address most of the issues that sports bodies have raised. Presently, the two companies that offer spread betting also offer fixed betting and thus have Gambling Commission licences. Could my noble friend tell me when the Gambling Commission will introduce this new licensing code?
I am also pleased that in recent weeks the FCA has finally agreed to take responsibility on this issue, no doubt following pressure generated by noble Lords— I say, immodestly. It has come forward with proposals for its own industry guidance for spread betting companies that take bets on sport. This guidance will be broadly similar to that issued by the Gambling Commission, but there are two main areas where it will be deficient in comparison and concerns remain.
The first is that the guidance will not be made public. I find that somewhat curious. Surely, regulatory requirements set by public bodies should be open, transparent and accountable. How is the sports sector to have confidence in a regulation if it does not know what it says? How can it be used as educational material or act as a deterrent in the sporting world if we cannot show people the actual guidance? Can the Minister give an assurance that a way will be found to make sure that this guidance is made publicly available to those in the sports sector?
Secondly, the industry guidance issued by the FCA will not require as a statutory requirement that the spread betting company must share any information that it has, not just with the FCA but, most importantly, with sports governing bodies. Sports bodies understandably have ongoing concerns about the quality of information that they might eventually receive and the speed at which it will be made available. I gather that the reason for this is that the FCA says that its own statutes do not allow it to instruct spread betting companies to share information directly with sports governing bodies. That would be a major anomaly and a threat to sports integrity, should a spread betting firm operate without having a fixed betting arm. That means that it would not fall under the regime being proposed by the Gambling Commission. Can the Minister tell me what action the Government are taking to ensure that any future spread betting company that is established and does not have a fixed betting operator licence will still be subject to the same requirements that the Gambling Commission is introducing?
The easiest way in which to guarantee a level regulatory playing field between traditional and spread betting companies would be to transfer responsibility for sports spread betting from the FCA to the Gambling Commission, as the amendment would seek to do. I understand that there are powers contained in a Treasury-regulated activities order that would enable the transfer of sports spread betting from the FCA to the Gambling Commission, which may be a more suitable route to address the issue than in this Bill. Could the Minister give a commitment that that option will be further explored as a matter of urgency, and that, should there be any development of standalone spread betting companies setting up, we could expect to see the application of a transfer of sports spread betting from the FCA to the Gambling Commission using that Treasury-regulated activities order? That would ensure that sports integrity continues to be upheld.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for tabling his amendment, which seeks to ensure that spread betting operators who hold a remote gambling licence from the Gambling Commission are required to report suspicious betting patterns to both the regulator and sports governing bodies under licence condition 15.1. Your Lordships have heard that my noble friend has tabled an amendment on that issue.
First, I acknowledge the determination with which Members of both Houses have pursued this matter—and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned one of his colleagues in the other place. The point about our deliberations is that it has undoubtedly led to more speedy progress.
As I said in Grand Committee, the Government take the issue of ensuring the integrity of sport very seriously. People must be able to trust that the sport that they are watching is fair and uncorrupted by cheating. The effect of this Bill will be that this will apply to all operators who offer remote gambling in the British market, regardless of where they are based, and information is at the very heart of the detection and disruption of any such corruption by regulators and sports governing bodies. But the Government believe that the following two-pronged approach achieves the objectives that noble Lords seek. This approach will ensure greater consistency in how suspicious activity is reported, and in a way that can be effectively enforced.
First, the Gambling Commission will soon be publishing its revised licensing conditions and codes of practice, which will include a change to licensing condition 15.1. This will make it clearer that, when a sports spread betting firm holds an operating licence with the Gambling Commission for its fixed odds activity, it will be required to report suspicious activity arising in relation to its sports spread betting activity. The revised licensing conditions will be published by the end of this month, and I say to my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint that the revised 15.1 will take effect in June.
Secondly, noble Lords will be aware of the FCA’s commitment to issue guidance for sports spread betting operators. The guidance will be issued under FCA Rule 15.3.17, which relates to the types of fraud and irregularities that must be reported to the FCA. The guidance will make it clear that the fraud and irregularities that will need to be reported by sports spread betting firms include suspicious sports betting. The FCA is also in discussion with the firms to put in place a mechanism by which information received by the FCA can be notified to the Gambling Commission and the relevant sports governing body. The finer details of the guidance are in the process of being finalised with the individual firms. However, I should make it clear that the underlying FCA Rule 15.3.17 is in place now.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint that where a spread betting firm does not have a Gambling Commission licence, it will be bound by the updated FCA guidance, which will, of course, be mandatory.
We believe that the approach we are taking will work and will facilitate the appropriate sharing of information —the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, particularly emphasised sharing of information, which is absolutely key to success—and it ensures that the licensing conditions, be it the expanded licence condition 15.1 adopted by the Gambling Commission, or the guidance issued by the FCA under the FCA rules, have a clear route back to the relevant regulator. Any failure to comply by an operator will be enforceable by the relevant regulator.
My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint asked a number of questions, seeking confirmation. As regards publishing the FCA’s guidance, as this is individual guidance it would not normally be made public. However, I will ask the two spread betting firms if they would be content to publish this individual guidance, once it is finalised. I should also mention that the first draft of the guidance was shared with the Gambling Commission, for its consideration and comment.
On best practice in information sharing—another point raised by my noble friend—I can confirm that the commission established the tripartite forum, involving betting operators and representatives of sports governing bodies. That forum continues to provide a space for debating these kinds of issues, which, again, is very important.
As regards future changes to the regulation of sports spread betting, I understand that there has been recent discussion between the FCA and the Gambling Commission as to whether the question of transfer needs to be revisited. Indeed, this matter remains very much alive. However, it is a very complex issue, and there was a deliberate decision at the time of the 2005 Act that it remain within the regulatory purview of the FCA as a financial services product. However, I can confirm that the mechanism for transferring the regulation from the FCA to the Gambling Commission is by amending the regulated activities order by statutory instrument. That issue was raised by my noble friend.
I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that action has, and is being, taken on this important issue to ensure greater consistency in the way that suspicious activity is reported, and how this can achieved. The Government take this issue extremely seriously as the work currently going on around sports integrity and match fixing illustrates. We believe that the steps we are taking, and what noble Lords seek, is the right path. Indeed, we think that our approach goes somewhat further than what is sought in the amendments in so far as the new FCA guidance complementing an enhanced 15.1 provision is concerned. On that basis, I very much hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, for her amendment and for speaking to it so excellently and, indeed, adding a number of questions which have provoked the Minister to take us further down this route, which makes us better understand the process that we are going through.
I also thank the Minister for acknowledging that this has been a co-operative team effort. He said that our deliberations had resulted in speedier progress. However, I think that they made the measure a bit better; I think he is being a bit mean in his praise. We were able to get together around some common themes that emerged as a result of the discussions on Second Reading and at the beginning of Committee, and, with others present today, we looked hard at what was being attempted here. In the sure and certain knowledge that gambling (licensing and advertising) Bills do not come before your Lordships’ House very often, we decided to try to hook a lift on one or two paragraphs in order to make improvements, which I hope will be long lasting and effective in terms of improving the situation for the sports governing bodies, the regulators and, indeed, of course, the consumers, who are, after all, what this is all about. That is my rant over.
I am not very experienced in matters to do with legislation, having been a mere three or four years in your Lordships’ House, but this is a model that we might try to export and use again in some future circumstances. I am certainly up for that. I am very pleased that the Minister was able to spell out in a bit more detail some of the additional regulatory framework that exists. It is important that the FCA and the Gambling Commission are in discussion. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, there probably is a case for transfer of, if not all the functions, at least some of them because it seems to me that the regulatory functions relating to gambling will get more complex and will be challenged by the new technologies, and I am sure that the FCA has other issues on which to focus.
We will return to match fixing in later debates this evening so I will not delay the House further on that point. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Consultation on remote gambling advertising
The Secretary of State shall consult on the current regulatory position concerning advertising of remote gambling and other forms of online gaming activity where it is likely to be seen by, or influence, a child or children and shall lay a report of the findings before both Houses of Parliament not later than the final day of 2014.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 3 calls for a review of the effects of online gambling adverts shown to children before the 9 pm watershed. Our amendment calls on the Secretary of State to conduct an investigation into whether there are sufficient controls, and report back to Parliament.
Our amendment recognises that the world of gambling adverts has changed dramatically since the 2005 Act, which gave exemptions to adverts for betting on televised sporting events and for bingo. Since then, televised sports coverage has multiplied so that it is now possible to watch sports programmes 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This has coincided with the massive growth in online gambling, so rather than place a bet in a betting shop on the outcome of a race or a match, gambling is now carried out at home. It is instant, compulsive and has become more complex. It is no longer enough to bet on the outcome of a game, you are now encouraged to bet on the first no-ball, the first corner, the first goal scorer and so on. This has been fuelled by the growth of spread betting with high stakes and winnings, but also potentially high losses.
As we have already identified, these days, viewers of televised sporting events are bombarded with betting adverts in the commercial breaks, with all kinds of tempting, and often misleading, offers for correctly predicting the run of play and the outcome. They capitalise on viewers’ excitement and emotion in the moment.
Equally, in 2005, I do not think that anyone predicted the rise of online bingo. In its original form, bingo had a strong social aspect, providing a safe community activity, particularly for women, in predominantly working-class areas. However, online bingo has none of these attributes: it is solitary, repetitive and addictive. It is not surprising to discover that most online bingo adverts are on daytime TV, targeting those who are home alone.
There is a third development which was also not anticipated, which is the rise of gambling adverts throughout the day on social media and music websites, which by their very nature are targeting a younger audience. We know that gambling adverts are profitable and increasingly prolific. For example, between 2005 and 2012, while the total number of TV adverts almost doubled, over the same period the number of gambling adverts increased eightfold to more than 4% of the total adverts shown. It may be that a more general review of the regulation of these adverts is necessary, but our amendment seeks to address one aspect of particular concern, which is the exposure of children to these ads before the 9 pm watershed.
Of course, these adverts are not specifically targeted at children, and there are codes of practice that prevent adverts seeking to exploit young people or appealing to children. However, this is not the point. The fact is that children are being increasingly exposed to remote gambling adverts as they watch TV sport or daytime TV, or listen to music channels. We know that children will often be accessing these programmes without their parents being present, and we know that children are more computer savvy than their parents and can therefore be tempted to find ways to participate in these betting opportunities. We also know from other studies how susceptible children can be to adverts, which is why there are already restrictions on other adverts before 9 pm.
Following Committee, the Minister wrote to us on this issue and I am grateful to him for the letter. He referred us to an Ofcom report published in November last year and went on to say that its research suggests that the current arrangements are working well. I have to say to the Minister that I have looked at the report and it was far from reassuring. Instead, it showed that since 2005 children’s exposure to gambling ads has increased by 272%, whereby in 2012 there were 1.8 billion views of these ads by children. Moreover, in 2012 children were exposed to more than 8% of all the lottery and scratchcard ads on music channels. I could quote more examples but the point is that I do not see anything in that Ofcom report that suggests that these statistics are acceptable.
The truth is that we do not know the extent to which children are influenced by these ads but we know that sports, bingo and social media ads are multiplying and becoming more sophisticated. This is why our amendment calls on the Secretary of State to initiate an investigation into the impact of these adverts on children and report to Parliament on her findings. We were therefore pleased to read at the weekend that the Secretary of State has now accepted the need to look again at the regulation of gambling advertising with the aim of providing better protection for children and the vulnerable. We were also pleased to receive yesterday a letter from the Minister confirming that an independent review will now be carried out, with the aim of implementing any changes in the autumn of this year.
It would therefore be helpful if the noble Lord could confirm today who will be involved in this review and who will make the ultimate recommendations to the Secretary of State. Can he also confirm whether the review will be underpinned by an open consultation? Can he reassure the House that Parliament will have the ultimate say on the proposals? Can he confirm the projected timetable for this review if it is anticipated that the changes will be implemented in the autumn?
It is in all our interests that we understand, while there is still time to act, whether these ads are encouraging a gambling culture among children. I hope that the noble Lord is able to reassure us that the Government are now prepared to take this issue seriously and have a robust and accountable review process in place. I look forward to his response on this matter.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, my motives in speaking to this amendment are entirely about probing further. I appreciated much of what the noble Baroness had to say about the opposition amendment and I am massively impressed by the growing consensus between the two Front Benches as the evening draws on.
However, the nature of the amendment is much narrower in scope than the review that the Secretary of State has promised. I am a little concerned about the sudden switch that has taken place. The noble Baroness referred to the letter of 22 January from my noble friend, as compared to the most recent letter of 3 March. There has been quite a turnaround, and we had the article from the Secretary of State in the Sunday Times last weekend. What concerns me is that this or any inquiry has to be firmly rooted in the evidence. I absolutely share what the noble Baroness had to say about the importance of child protection and the exposure of children to these gambling adverts but I do not want us to engage in some kind of moral panic when it comes to advertising to adults.
Gambling and the activities that take place, whether in casinos or remotely, are legitimate and it is legitimate to advertise them. Unless there a clearly established connection between advertising and problem gambling—from the research so far, it does not appear to be a major factor—I hope that this debate will be devoted largely to looking at the impact on children. There probably are conflicting views on the nature of the Ofcom evidence: the Advertising Association seems to be saying that only 42 seconds of advertising out of nearly 17 hours spent watching television each week is seen by 10 to 15 year-olds. I do not know whether that is the case or whether the figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, cited are correct. If there is an issue here, we should definitely explore it. From his letter, I know that the Minister will clearly respond positively.
However, I am concerned, particularly when the Secretary of State makes a statement referring to a 600% increase in gambling advertising. I am not a mathematician; in fact, I am virtually innumerate but I know that if you use percentages such as that it can sometimes be from a very low base. Let us face it, between 2006 and now, remote gambling of the kind that is advertised so heavily has grown hugely as an industry, and it is hardly surprising that gambling advertising of that nature has increased in that period.
All that I am saying is that I hope that when the Secretary of State commissions this inquiry, questions of the kind being asked by the noble Baroness will be answered. I also hope that those answers will be firmly rooted in evidence and that we do not just rush to condemn gambling advertising per se, when what we are really after is the impact on the under-18s.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this short debate but, after listening to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, I cannot resist doing do.
Looking around your Lordships’ rather empty House at this late hour, I see that I am the only Member who sat on the joint scrutiny committee on the 2003-04 Bill, which became the 2005 Act. I remember the tortuous hours of evidence that we heard about the effects that this new phenomenon of gambling advertising would have. I do not make this as a party-political point but as a general political point: the Government of the day swept that aside. I heard my noble friend give a figure of a 600% increase but that was of course from a low base, which was zero; there was no advertising of this sort at that time. It was introduced under the 2005 Act, amid a lot of people—some sensible and some not so sensible—saying that it would cause awful mayhem. Of course, there is no mayhem and nightmare because the background is that we were also advised that we should take into account what is now called evidence-based policy, which is introduced on expert advice and allows the Minister of the day to avoid exercising his political judgment—probably the reason for which he was elected, but that is neither here nor there.
However, the reality is that this debate is the child of the 2005 Act, which was put through far too fast, not thought through and not based on evidence. Now we are in this Bill having in part to clean up some of the mess that the Act created—quite rightly, because that is what Parliament does from time to time. However, that is the history and everyone has to recognise that that is what happens when you legislate in haste.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I add my support for the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Having listened to everybody’s contributions, I think that what is really important here is the effect on children of this increased access to advertising. It provides an early start to children getting gambling problems, which then have to be sorted out, and that is what my amendment was seeking to address. I do not feel one way or the other about what other noble Lords have said but I think that the age of the children being exposed to this advertising is important. A 10 o’clock watershed would be ideal if only it could be applied to online activity, although we all know that it cannot. Nevertheless, other ways of checking this should certainly be looked at in detail.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment in respect of gambling advertising, particularly because, as noble Lords have said, there have been some recent developments in this important area.
The Government recognise that the relaxation of restrictions on gambling advertising following the implementation of the Gambling Act in 2007 has led to a significantly greater volume of gambling advertising on television and in other media. Indeed, over the weekend my right honourable friend the Secretary of State expressed concern about some of these developments and outlined some of the actions that will be taken.
Although the nine o’clock television watershed arrangements—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned 10 o’clock but my understanding is that the watershed arrangements are from 9 o’clock at night—have limited the exposure of children to such advertising compared with adults, children still see considerably more gambling advertising on television than ever before.
In addition, we have seen significant innovation in the gambling industry since the current regulatory controls were established in 2007. The codes, including the industry voluntary code, which govern gambling advertising are now applied across a much changed gambling landscape with the availability and promotion of new products which were not anticipated when the codes were devised. These technological developments have led to intense competition in remote gambling advertising, which has coincided with an increase in complaints about gambling advertising to the Advertising Standards Authority. It is timely, therefore, that the codes are re-examined to ensure that existing controls keep pace with developments in the market and that they remain consistent with public expectations about gambling advertising.
Noble Lords may be aware that the Government have been working for over six months with the organisations responsible for regulating gambling advertising to monitor the impact of developments and to consider whether the current controls remain adequate. In particular, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this work includes both remote gambling advertising and other forms of online gaming activity, including online bingo. As a result of these discussions, I am now in a position to explain the four strands of work being undertaken, and to what timetable, to ensure that the regulatory controls on gambling advertising are properly examined, especially in relation to children and the most vulnerable. The Secretary of State particularly mentioned children and the most vulnerable.
I say to my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Mancroft that it is absolutely key that this work is rooted in evidence and that there is a thorough review. Therefore, the first of the four strands is that the Government have asked the Remote Gambling Association to co-ordinate an industry-led review of the voluntary Gambling Industry Code for Socially Responsible Gambling. As noble Lords will be aware, this code supplements the principal regulations on gambling advertising by providing industry standards in certain areas, including educational messaging and the 9 pm watershed arrangements for television advertising. The Remote Gambling Association has agreed to complete its review with a view to coming forward with any proposed revisions by the summer of this year.
Secondly, the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice have committed to evaluate the findings of a new report into gambling advertising to consider what regulatory implications arise as a result. This report will be published by the Responsible Gambling Trust this month and will examine the available evidence on gambling advertising and its relationship with problem gambling. The committees will publish their findings on completion of this work, which could lead to changes in the principal codes controlling gambling advertising. The findings are expected by the autumn of this year.
Thirdly, the Advertising Standards Authority will undertake a review of its enforcement action on the gambling rules, taking into account internal intelligence, complaints statistics and trends to ensure that it is enforcing the rules proportionately and consistently. The ASA will communicate the outcome publically by the autumn of this year.
Finally, the Gambling Commission will consider what revisions might be necessary to the licence conditions and codes of practice to ensure that all gambling advertising continues to comply with the licensing objectives of the Gambling Act. This work will be principally focused on ensuring that free bets and bonus offers are marketed in a fair and open way by the gambling industry.
I hope that that provides noble Lords with the reassurance that significant activity, which can have a real impact, is in hand. To my noble friends in particular, I emphasise that this will be rooted in evidence, and there are four strands to it. The terms of reference for the reviews are currently being defined and will be made public by the spring.
I am confident that the multi-agency approach will provide the comprehensive and robust examination that is necessary. As regards the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about consultation, the Government intend to involve all relevant stakeholders during the review. Any statutory regulations would be preceded by consultation and the Government will confirm their position by the end of this year. They will consider the findings of the review before determining what further action may be necessary and will confirm their position by the end of the year. I will arrange for a summary of the findings of the reviews and the Government’s response to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they are available but definitely by the end of this year. I very much thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate. On this basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank very much noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and the Minister for his reply. I echo his view that of course any proposed changes should be based on evidence and empirical research, which has been somewhat lacking in the past. Therefore, there is a rather urgent need to address that issue. Nevertheless, I welcome the change in mood and position from the Secretary of State and the Minister over the past couple of months. It has been a very welcome conversion on the road to Damascus. I also welcome the detail that the Minister has spelt out in terms of the steps that will now be taken. I suppose I have a remaining concern that, although the Minister described them as four strands, there very much is a need to pull those four strands together and to pull them into an ultimate set of recommendations. I am taking him on slight trust that that certainly is the intention of the Secretary of State and that we will end up with one set of recommendations regardless of the four pieces of work that are taking place. I very much welcome the commitments that the Minister is now able to give.
When a Bill is over, there is a tendency sometimes in this House for it to be out of sight and out of mind but in this case we will pursue the Government as regards the work that is taking place over the coming months and try to hold them to account for the commitments that they have given. In the spirit of co-operation and working on the basis of trust, I take the Minister’s good word on this matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor
“Power to extend the horserace betting levy to overseas bookmakers
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any provision or provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 (at a time when the provisions listed in section 15(1)(a) to (c) of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004 (horserace betting levy system) have not been entirely repealed by order under that section), the Gambling Act 2005 and/or the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007/2159 for the purposes of ensuring that each person who holds an operating licence under the Gambling Act 2005 which authorises that person to provide facilities for betting shall be—
(a) liable to pay the bookmakers’ levy payable under section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; and(b) subject to the provisions of section 120 of the Gambling Act 2005 (as modified in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005 (Horserace Betting Levy) Order 2007/2159) if that person is in default of such bookmakers’ levy.(2) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I should start by thanking my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for moving this amendment in Committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his support for the amendment. I should apologise for missing Committee but after joining the Prime Minister on his trip to China in December, I was called back to Beijing in January and so missed that stage.
My amendment produced an informed and generally supportive debate. The Minister concentrated his response by saying that now was not the right time to replace the levy and that a reform was needed to be considered across the whole system. I absolutely agree but my amendment does not seek to reform the levy. I agree that there should be a major reform that takes in all aspects of the issues that surround racing, whether it is on-course betting, off-course betting, offshore or onshore betting, betting exchanges, media rights or issues of state aid.
My amendment is simple. It allows the Secretary of State to bring in legislation to encompass offshore bookmakers who do not presently pay the levy. Racing is losing about £10 million a year that it is entitled to. That word “entitled” raises the question of why. There is a simple analogy. If the Government are going to regulate those based overseas on areas such as problem gambling and integrity on bets on UK sports, that shows that there is already that reach and the entitlement. My amendment does not force the Government to do anything but if they want to support racing they could use it. It does not cost any money and, in fact, it would provide an addition to the Treasury coffers. The reason it is important for racing is that we know that there is no time to legislate this Session. Therefore, the earliest time will probably be half way through the next Session of Parliament, by which time racing will have lost out on nearly £100 million of income.
I read carefully the Minister’s response in Grand Committee. He said that my amendment was too narrow in its scope. That may be so, so I look forward to the Government widening and improving it. The Minister said that the levy is regarded as state aid by the EU. I think we all agree with that. However, my amendment does not change anything. It just allows the levy to be collected as it used to be from all bookmakers. It is not necessarily a substantive change to the existing system as some have claimed. If permission is required from the European Parliament, the Government can ask for clarity before they proceed. After all, that is what the French did and it worked. If accepted, the amendment would allow the Government to continue their discussions with the European Commission.
My amendment supports the racing industry. Following the very useful discussions I have had with the Minister of Sport, Helen Grant, I understand that my noble friend might be able to reconsider his earlier response. I look forward to his reply. My amendment would put bookmakers based in the UK on an equal footing with those based abroad. It would allow the Government, if they wish, to remove the unfair competition that those based abroad currently enjoy and which benefits racing. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the principle of my noble friend’s amendment. It would be especially suitable for the Minister to take heed of it as it is the Chinese year of the horse. My noble friend spent some time in Beijing, so clearly he was inspired by the horse to put forward the amendment.
The question is whether we are going to miss the boat. The opportunity has been taken to hang off the architecture of the Bill a number of amendments that do not necessarily relate to remote gambling. It is incumbent on the Minister, if he is going to avoid further and perhaps unwanted amendments, to reassure those of us who see a boat going by without the opportunity to make desirable amendments, because we know that there will not be another gambling Bill for another five years or so. This is one of the issues that we face. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance on the ability of the Government—or any Government—to institute a new, improved form of levy that safeguards the future of the industry, without it being incorporated in the Bill. Otherwise, it will make reserved powers very attractive as a mechanism for introducing a future form of levy. That is a dilemma.
This evening, the Minister very adroitly proceeded by way of voluntary agreements and assurances in a number of areas, or by actions that do not require primary legislation. I hope that this will be another such instance. However, it is a subject of considerable anxiety in the racing industry and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy all those who want to see some action going forward in this case.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to associate myself with this amendment. I hope that my new alliance with the noble Viscount will produce positive results tonight. Perhaps it is a sign of things to come and we can co-operate on other issues.
What the noble Lord said reminded me that, in the Chinese zodiac, I am in fact a horse. However, that does not mean that I support the amendment simply from a vested interest point of view. Many people have placed a bet on a horserace at one time or another, but I suspect that few realise that racing is the second largest sporting employer, supporting a predominantly rural industry that makes a significant contribution to the UK economy.
As we have heard, the purpose of the amendment is to capture the revenue that should be paid, as Parliament has already determined, from all betting operators that take online and telephone bets on racing in Britain, wherever they are located. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Clive Efford in the other place, who has consistently raised this issue. The change, as we have heard, could be worth up to £20 million a year to British horseracing, and would undoubtedly lead to a healthier sport, and to more investment, growth and jobs.
Too often, people focus just on the prize money and do not see the work of the board and the training, education and employment initiatives that the levy supports, year in and year out. Nor do they see the broader picture of how the industry has a direct link to building sustainable rural economies. Why should offshore betting operators and those in betting shops pay the full levy while others who are based overseas and do not have a voluntary agreement pay nothing?
In Committee, we heard the argument that any reform of the levy to capture revenues under a point of consumption licensing regime would constitute state aid. As the noble Viscount pointed out, that interpretation is not accepted by the British horseracing industry—and nor, following the ruling of the European Commission, is it one that we need to accept. The French raised the issue and we have had a decision on it.
This sets a precedent that I understand is being reviewed by the department’s lawyers. Clearly it is better that we should rely on new legislation rather than just have another round of disputes following messy court cases. I agree with the comment that in the long term, the Government may want to consider a more modern and commercial framework for the levy. That is something that I know the industry would support. However, with the best will in the world, the sport will be waiting several more years for that, all the while losing out on a vital source of income. Action has long been required and Ministers must not simply allow this once-in-a-Parliament opportunity for primary legislation to pass.
Clearly, there is a strong argument for further consultation and assessment of the implications of the European Commission’s warning on state aid. However, I would ask the Minister to begin consultation on levy reform as soon as possible and to include all options, particularly the option for a “horseracing right”. As the noble Viscount said, the amendment is about the reserve power to allow that to happen, giving the Government the opportunity to consult the Commission and, if that route of action is considered the right one, the power to act. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State reserved power to extend liability to pay the horserace betting levy to offshore remote gambling operators. We have had some useful discussions about the future of the levy at all stages of the Bill, including some particularly interesting ones in Committee. They have been extremely valuable and I want to reassure your Lordships that the Government have been listening. I am grateful to all noble Lords for the constructive discussions we have had.
We agree with the view that while we still have a statutory levy, it should be fairly applied. Furthermore, we are persuaded that including a clause about extending the levy to offshore remote operators is fully in keeping with the context and purpose of the Bill. We will therefore bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading which will remedy your Lordships’ concerns about ensuring a level playing field between onshore and offshore betting operators in terms of the levy. With the consent of the House, this amendment will give the Secretary of State power to use secondary legislation to secure extension of the levy to offshore remote operators. I shall ensure that all noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this matter during the Bill’s passage are invited to a briefing on the detail of the amendment before Third Reading. Bringing forward a government amendment will complement the work which, as I mentioned to your Lordships, is already under way to seek clarity on the state aid issues from the European Commission. The Government will consult on implementing an extension before any secondary legislation is brought before Parliament.
The Government want British racing to continue to thrive. I know from my own experience just how important racing is to so many in the countryside and of course in all communities—not only its economic impact but the pleasure it gives to so many millions of people. Extending the levy to offshore remote operators will help achieve the objective we all share. I want to say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, that bringing forward a government amendment about extending the levy in the way that I have described does not of course close down options for wider levy reform or replacement. This is very much work in progress.
The Government have committed to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading which will achieve the outcomes being sought tonight. Consequently, I ask my noble friend whether he will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his response and I thank him for all the help that he has given me. I also thank the officials in his department for all the help that they have given on this issue. It has been extremely useful and we have come to a very satisfactory conclusion.
I think that all noble Lords agree that we want a commercial relationship between all the entities that comprise the racing industry. However, we need the Government to take a lead. If they do not, I am afraid that the industry will not come up with a solution itself, as there are too many vested commercial interests at play. I hope that the Government will consider setting up a consultation process with all involved in the racing industry to consider how best to put this new commercial relationship in place to replace the levy at a point in the future.
I should have declared an interest in that I own one and a third legs of a three year-old. I have to say that, on its current form running as a two year-old, I do not think it will be contributing to the levy or indeed benefiting from it. However, I am ever hopeful, and if your Lordships are interested in contributing to the levy, it is called Squaw King—it is trained by Eve Johnson Houghton and I very much hope it will run in May. In the mean time, I thank all those who spoke in this debate, particularly my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Facilities for remote gambling
(1) Section 235 of the Gambling Act 2005 (gaming machine) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (h)(ii), leave out “and”, and(b) in paragraph (i)(iii), at the end insert “, and “(j) a machine is not a gaming machine by reason only of the fact that it is remote gambling equipment (within the meaning of section 36) which is made available for use in a casino”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the nature of, and circumstances in which, remote gambling equipment to which subsection (2)(j) applies (a “casino remote terminal”) may be made available for use in a casino.
(2B) Regulations under subsection (2A) may, in particular, provide for—
(a) a casino remote terminal to be constructed or adapted so as to—(i) only permit users to gain access to remote gambling facilities; and(ii) not be capable of accepting or processing any form of payment; (other than any payment made by the user via an online account to the provider of the remote gambling facilities),(b) the maximum number of casino remote terminals which may be made available in a casino,(c) the location within a casino where, and circumstances under which, a casino remote terminal may be used,(d) any other matter.””
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, as I pointed out in Grand Committee, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee made a cross-party recommendation to the Government to amend the Bill to allow British bricks-and-mortar casinos to offer their online gaming products within their own premises.
Currently a regulatory anomaly means that people can play on remote internet sites using their own mobile phones, tablets or laptops, whether in their homes, on the move or in any public or private place, including inside a casino. However, while under existing regulations onshore casino operators can and do hold remote licences which permit them to advertise their online products in their casinos, these licences do not allow operators to indicate that the product is available from any internet-linked computer within their casinos or advertise their online sites on or around an actual computer with internet access supplied by the operator. In other words, it is currently illegal for a casino to offer a customer access to their own legitimate online business if the customer is inside their bricks-and-mortar business.
It seems commercially illogical that the most rigorously controlled premises, intended by statute to be at the top of the regulatory pyramid, are not permitted the most up-to-date technological products. This amendment would simply provide a synergy between the casino’s online and land-based products, already recognisable to casino customers, in a similar way to land-based bricks-and-mortar retailers, such as John Lewis, which offers its products in store and via an online facility inside its land-based stores.
More importantly, it is also a missed opportunity to undertake research and player protection in that the product itself will not be available in terrestrial casinos, which are required by law to have the most rigorous control measures. All casino gaming staff are licensed by the Gambling Commission; all staff, including all food and drink and administrative personnel, are trained annually in responsible gambling practices; and effective policies are in place to protect the young and vulnerable. UK terrestrial casinos already provide their customers with laptops, iPads and computers, which are available in their business-style lounges, and the products that could be offered through this amendment are not slot machines.
The Government’s intention appears to be to continue to categorise internet terminals supplied by operators in casinos as gaming machines—probably category A machines—while allowing the use of precisely the same devices owned by customers in those casinos without restriction. The idea that consumers accessing their own accounts on a gambling website should have the content controlled simply because it is in a different area of the same building and on something called a category A gaming machine provided by the operator rather than on their own internet access device adds nothing to player protection and is confusing for the consumer.
In Grand Committee the Minister raised a number of concerns, notably around the perceived lack of controls over how remote terminals might develop. This new amendment seeks to respond to all those concerns. It defines the exact nature of a remote gaming device and addresses the concerns raised by the Minister by placing the responsibility for all associated decisions solely with the Secretary of State. It provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate not only the maximum number of remote terminals within a casino but the location where and the circumstances in which a remote terminal may be used, as well as a remote terminal’s specific use and appearance and the fact that these machines would not be capable of accepting or processing any form of payment. To go one step further, the revised amendments would even enable the Secretary of State to provide for any other matter. I really believe that this new amendment would provide DCMS with all the safeguards it requires.
Viscount Astor
My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment as I fully understand the arguments made by the casinos sector. It is in what one might call an unfair position at the moment. I understand that my noble friend the Minister is not unsympathetic to those arguments.
As I understand it, the difficulty is that the department, while having what one might call fruitful discussions on the issue, believes that the solution can be progressed safely and satisfactorily through secondary legislation. Of course, it would be helpful if the outline of that secondary legislation could be agreed before we get to Third Reading but I accept that this is a complicated area—the more so as one looks at it and realises what can be accessed online, whether with one’s own machine or one provided by a casino. I understand that the Government want to get this right.
I presume that my noble friend the Minister will want to come back again and say that secondary legislation is the right way to proceed with this issue. I will accept his assurance provided that he can give one bit of comfort to us: that, once this Bill has completed its passage through the House, the issue will not be kicked into the long grass and forgotten but will still be dealt with. It should be looked at carefully and as speedily as possible. I am sure that it will be, so that we can have a solution that is satisfactory to all those concerned.
Lord Mancroft
My Lords, I, too, put my name to the amendment in Grand Committee. Amazing though it may sound to your Lordships, the Prime Minister manages to travel the world without my company so, unlike my noble friend Lord Astor, I cannot claim that I was in China. I cannot actually remember where I was, but it was not in China.
There is no need to explain the background: my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has done that adequately. Reading the Hansard of Committee stage to prepare for this evening, I noticed that my noble friend Lord Flight—who, sadly, is not in his place this evening—described the anomaly that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones talked about and which the amendment is intended to address as a silly anomaly. Nonsense, he called it. He said that the amendment in its previous incarnation was straightforward and common sense. That was quite right. He also described the Government’s position at the time as pretty silly, and he was quite right about that too.
In Committee, the Minister talked about basing remote gaming around existing machine rules—I think I have quoted him correctly on that. It was that which really drew my attention to this, because I have history on legislation in gambling regulation. That is the sort of thing that leads to ineffective and bad regulation. That is exactly what the previous Government tried to do when a new class of gaming machine came out. That is the problem that we now have with what are called fixed-odds betting terminals, which are not betting terminals at all: they are gaming machines. It is really important when new machines and new forms of gambling appear that we regulate them correctly and do not try to fit them into boxes that are not really there. That is what I would call the DCMS’s attempt at the King Canute style of regulation, holding back the waves of new technology. That is what we did before and we must be very careful not to do it again in this case. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones’s amendment is an attempt to address that.
In truth, I think that the Government have now accepted the principle of what my noble friend’s amendment is intended to do; I hope that they have. The debate before us this evening is really about whether it is better to put it in primary or secondary legislation. I know that, originally, the Government’s view was that this was not the right legislative vehicle. I have heard that before so many times. I am not quite sure what the right legislative vehicle is, but I am absolutely certain that the general public do not care; they just want it done. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, the right legislative vehicle—any legislative vehicle—does not come along very often, so when one comes along, you want to grab it.
If the amendment is to be withdrawn and the Government are to move forward in a different direction, the Minister should give your Lordships a commitment on a timetable, so that this does not just drag on and on, as issues have before. The problem with secondary legislation is that it is impossible to amend. If that is the route that the Government are determined to go down, my understanding is that the industry is not happy with it and would much prefer primary legislation but, obviously, like any industry, it will take what it can get. It seems to the industry, and it certainly seems to me, that primary legislation is the right vehicle for this. Unless the Minister can give us a very good reason why it is not, that is what we should do. There is quite enough flexibility in the provision. I think that your Lordships deserve the Government’s commitment to a timetable and to flexibility for the industry to make sure that we get this right. Unless we have those commitments, I see no reason not to take the view of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and pass the amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for his amendment and all my noble friends who have spoken to it. It is intended to allow the casino sector to introduce its specific remote gambling product into casino premises. As I said in Grand Committee, the Government are not opposed in principle to that, provided that appropriate player protections are put in place. We remain concerned that any changes should be effected within existing machine regulations so that appropriate controls can be put in place, rather than outside them in primary legislation, which this amendment would cause.
I have looked into this issue carefully and particularly because, on the face of it, this seems like a simple change to current arrangements by allowing casinos merely to promote their own online games within their premises. On further reflection and in reality, however, this is a more complex change that would introduce credit card play into the casino environment for the first time and permit far broader sports betting. It could also allow casinos to develop even more sophisticated remote gaming machines without the proper controls afforded by machine regulations.
Casinos are already able to offer remote gaming devices in their premises within existing machine controls. Those regulations create a carefully crafted hierarchy to ensure that machine-based play can be offered only with appropriate player protections in place. Player protections are a key part of this; they include restrictions on the number of machines, their location and the circumstances under which they can be used. I acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is absolutely right to say that casinos are at the top of the regulatory pyramid. However, I also hope that noble Lords will agree that it is incumbent on the Government—indeed, that the Government have a responsibility—to consider carefully the impact of any new gambling arrangements, to ensure the avoidance of unintended consequences and an increase in problem gambling. My noble friend Lord Mancroft mentioned the way in which developments can take us and given the pace with which gaming technology develops, this is not merely a theoretical risk.
The casino industry recognises that any changes need to be made subject to appropriate player protections. We welcome this, as it reflects the very constructive dialogue that officials have had with the industry to date on this issue. This is also acknowledged in my noble friends’ amendment, which gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations for the nature and circumstances in which remote gaming machines can be used in casinos. This brings us much closer to the current regulatory structure and, in our view, it is difficult to see the need for primary legislation. Indeed, there would be a real risk of introducing regulatory anomalies in the existing primary legislation route.
For these reasons, the Government do not think that taking remote devices outside existing regulation is the right route to tackling this issue. The Government consider that this issue is best progressed instead through the ongoing and very constructive discussions with industry, and that any changes implemented can be done through secondary legislation. I emphasise that the Government are actively engaged in constructive discussion with the casino industry and the Gambling Commission to consider the appropriate legislative and regulatory tools that would need to be put in place. I understand entirely that the industry would like to have primary legislation as its first objective but it has acknowledged that secondary legislation is a viable option to pursue these proposals.
My noble friends Lord Astor, Lord Mancroft and Lord Clement-Jones quite rightly asked for some assurances. The discussions are scheduled to conclude at the end of this month and Ministers will then consider the outcomes. This is very much a live discussion and I give those reassurances to my noble friends. I also emphasise to your Lordships that the Government are not ruling out change but that we think we need to approach this in the right manner and ensure that such changes are made through an existing regulatory framework that applies to gaming machines while bringing proper scrutiny, assessment, consultation and—this is paramount—consumer protections. It is for these reasons and because I think that there is another route for this that, while I understand what my noble friend would prefer, I ask him whether he might withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, albeit that it was somewhat disappointing in the circumstances. It was somewhat circular, in that he said that we must have appropriate player protection and the appropriate protection is that provided by secondary legislation, so we go around the loop that says that secondary legislation must be the way forward. Yet the Minister almost admitted himself that the amendment reflects a lot—in fact, most if not all—of what could be reflected in secondary legislation.
The Minister described the discussions taking place with the industry as ongoing and constructive, but to date the industry itself has found them to be ongoing but frustrating because of the insistence on bringing the whole issue within secondary legislation and categorising these terminals as machines subject to all the existing secondary legislation, rather than finding a new and more flexible way of dealing with them. However, it is not incumbent on me to keep bashing my head against a brick wall. I very much hope that the Minister’s discussions will be rather more fruitful than they have been to date. From the timescale, I fear that we will have had Third Reading in this House by the time that his discussions come to a conclusion.
The Minister said that it is incumbent on the Government to consider the consequences of any new arrangements and that there are complexities surrounding these issues. I must be very simple-minded because I cannot see that the matters are quite so complex. I feel that the Minister is busy building the barricades as we speak. In fact, the barricades seem to be much higher on Report than they were in Committee; I was rather more impressed by his reply then than I have been on Report. I live in hope, though, and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Browne of Belmont
“Remote operating licence
(1) Section 89 of the Gambling Act 2005 (remote operating licence) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Commission shall hold a list of persons who have registered to be excluded from access to remote gambling websites.
(1B) It shall be a condition of a remote operating licence that an operator must exclude any person access who has registered for self-exclusion with the Commission under subsection (1A).””
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the Government have been very clear that this Bill is about consumer protection. As others have noted, this was made very clear by the Minister, Helen Grant MP, in another place when she said that the new licensing proposals address,
“the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to enhance consumer protection by ensuring that all operators offering remote gambling in Britain are regulated by the Gambling Commission, whether they are based in Britain or overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill Committee, 19/11/13; col. 75.]
As has also been pointed out, though, that statement makes sense only if the new requirement for all online gambling providers based beyond the UK to obtain a UK gambling commission licence is backed by a parallel provision preventing those that do not have a licence from accessing the UK market.
In that context, the main effect of the Bill, far from enhancing consumer protection, is actually to place it under greater pressure by dramatically widening the scope for online gambling advertising in the UK. Rather than enhancing consumer protection, the Bill’s principal implication will consequently be to make the British people more aware of gambling opportunities, and not just any such opportunities but opportunities associated with a far higher problem gambling prevalence figure than gambling generally. While the basic 2010 problem prevalence figure was 0.9% for online, it was over 9% on an annual basis and over 17% on a monthly basis.
Mindful of that, I find the intervention of the Secretary of State over the weekend rather odd. She has said that she wants to clamp down on gambling advertising, yet her department is at the same time introducing dramatic online gambling licensing liberalisation. I am genuinely at a loss to know how these two commitments fit together. Estimates differ, but it is widely recognised that the UK embraces about 450,000 problem gamblers. That may not seem very many as a proportion of the total population, but it is a very significant number of people in absolute terms. We rightly devote very considerable care and attention to other social challenges that affect similar numbers of people, yet we do not seem to accord problem gambling the same level of concern or attention.
Problem gambling is a very debilitating condition that takes over people’s lives and destroys them. Last week, I was privileged to hold a briefing on this amendment in the Palace of Westminster that was addressed by two recovering problem gamblers who bravely shared their stories. Justyn, aged 45, and Dino, aged 36, developed gambling problems relatively recently, within the past four years or so. Of particular interest for the purposes of the Bill, which liberalises online gambling advertising, is that they both began online gambling in response to adverts they had seen promoting free bets. In one case, the advertising was at a sporting event; in the other, it was on a bus. The destructive impact of problem gambling on both was remarkably similar. They got into difficulty relatively quickly and ended up losing their jobs and families and became hugely involved in debt.
They both said that one of the problems with online gambling is the fact that it is available 24/7 with no natural barriers, such as those pertaining to a betting shop. You do not have to leave the house to gamble, and there is no closing time. They also highlighted that it is an enormously solitary experience without any kind of accountability to fellow humans. One of them even ended up selling his son’s christening presents to raise funds to feed his habit. It is a matter of great concern to me that this Bill, which is supposed to be about consumer protection, not only proposes making life much more difficult for problem gamblers, such as Justin and Dino, but completely fails to take any balancing or compensating steps to help them.
In this regard, the failure to do so is further compounded by the fact that online gamblers are already seriously disadvantaged in terms of the support available to them when compared with terrestrial gamblers. One of the key mechanisms for helping problem gamblers is self-exclusion. Problem gamblers, like other addicts, experience days when they are stronger and days when they are weaker. On a stronger day, a problem gambler can get around the five betting shops in his town and self-exclude for a fixed period—say, six months—and thereby cut himself off from local gambling opportunities for the period in question, during which time he can seek help and try to put his life back together again. Crucially, however, the same provision does not have the same effect for online problem gamblers. On a strong day, the online problem gambler can self-exclude from five online gambling providers, but he cannot cut himself off from all locally available online gambling opportunities because there will still be hundreds, if not thousands, of online gambling providers that remain equally accessible from his bedroom.
Not only do online problem gamblers have to exclude themselves far more times to cut themselves off from locally available gambling opportunities, they would have to self-exclude to an extent that is physically impossible. Mindful of the fact that self-excluding once is a difficult step for a problem gambler to take, the idea of doing it hundreds, if not thousands of times, simply is not credible.
Given this problem, it is my firm belief that we should provide online problem gamblers with the credible form of self-exclusion promoted by my amendment. Amendment 7 proposes that instead of trying to self-exclude from multiple online gambling websites, online problem gamblers should have the option of self-excluding just once to the Gambling Commission. The Gambling Commission would then relay the self-exclusion to all online providers with Gambling Commission licences and all such providers would be required to honour the terms of the self-exclusion as a condition of their licence.
The need for a one-stop shop online self-exclusion mechanism was demonstrated clearly through the testimony of the online problem gamblers who came to Parliament last week. Justyn Larcombe said that had a one-stop shop self-exclusion mechanism been in place in 2012 it could have saved his marriage. Justyn, with the support of his wife, made the difficult decision to self-exclude from the online gambling site he had been using. The reality of his self-exclusion provided both Justyn and his wife with a real sense of security. It was, however, only a matter of time before he saw adverts for other online gambling websites and, three months on, he had been fully set back into using alternative sites. When his long-suffering wife found out, that was it; she left him.
Dino Panayi, meanwhile, explained how he had managed to self-exclude from 25 websites but, in words that all too eloquently sum up the problem, he said:
“The problem is, there is always another website”.
Again, he was adamant that a one-stop shop self-exclusion mechanism would make a real and practical difference to their lives. Of course, neither was suggesting that the one-stop shop was a magic wand that would liberate them from their problem, but they were both very clear that it was one relatively simple step that could be taken and would make a clear, positive impact on their lives. They could not understand why the Government had not already intervened to introduce a one-stop shop, and were shocked that the Government had whipped against an amendment proposing this change in the Commons.
I find it extraordinary that the Government should introduce what is, in effect, our first Bill specially on online gambling without seizing the opportunity it presents for dealing with the long-term disadvantaging of online problem gamblers. I find it even more extraordinary that the Government should instead use the Bill to make life much more difficult than is already the case for online problem gamblers in the United Kingdom by introducing far-reaching online gambling liberalisation, so that any provider anywhere in the world can now advertise so long as they get a Gambling Commission licence.
Amendment 7 presents your Lordships’ House with the opportunity of ensuring that this, the very first piece of legislation specifically on online gambling, seizes the opportunity to address the historic disadvantage of online problem gamblers. Amendment 7 also provides a means of balancing the online gambling advertising provision in the Bill, which will make life much more difficult for online gamblers, with a provision that would at least provide some assistance. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I support the amendment. Gambling is an extraordinary business, and it is never more so than when otherwise sensible, able people become addicted to it. I was present at the meeting kindly organised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and I was very moved by the testimony of the two men there who had fallen prey to this addiction. One was a Regular Army officer who was thereafter a senior figure and shareholder in a City business; the other was an engineer who had been a broadcast disc jockey. Listening to those two men—who were being extraordinarily brave, forthright and frank—drove home to me the sheer loneliness and social isolation that goes with the addiction to gambling and what an awful business it is.
I then read Section 1 of the Gambling Act 2005, which is substantially amended by the Bill. This section —in Part 1 of the Act, which is headed “Interpretation of Key Concepts”—under “Principal concepts”, says:
“In this Act a reference to the licensing objectives is a reference to the objectives of”—
the third of which is:
“protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling”.
The people we are talking about in this amendment are “other vulnerable persons”, and they are harmed and exploited by gambling and exploited by the companies that run these betting opportunities. They are ruthless in the way that they advertise. They go straight for the jugular. They care not what happens as long as their betting odds come piling in.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He put the case so clearly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that I find it very difficult to think of any further reasons at all for not accepting it. He and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, were present at that gathering where we heard, as has been said, these incredible addicts talk extremely frankly about their own addiction and what situations it had caused for them and their families and about the total horror of all that. I therefore hope the Government will realise that there is a role for what is proposed in the amendment and take on board just how important it is to make certain that it is included in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I associate myself very closely with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, so I will not repeat the points they made. Noble Lords will realise that it is quite rare for Members from this Bench to quote the scriptures. For understandable reasons we are a bit coy about doing that. However, I cannot avoid going to a verse from the First Epistle to Timothy, which says that,
“the love of money is the root of all evil”.
There is great truth in that. The lure and attraction of wealth so often lies behind the person who turns gambling from an innocent pastime into an obsession, an addiction or whatever. A responsible society has to do what it can to protect people against these false gods and false goals. When you get into the digital world, you simply raise the stakes, to use a gambling analogy. If I am a problem gambler and I have to walk down to the betting shop in Chester, there is a natural restraint—there may be only two or three people there and they will wonder what I am doing when I walk through the door. But if those restraints are taken away, you have to be cognisant of the potential dangers.
I often think that we are now, in the digital age, in a digital version of the wild west, where there was all the excitement and discovery and all the positive aspects in America when it opened up, but the reality of law and order had to come in later. We must provide proper protection to people in the online world.
I shall briefly refer to a completely different area that concerns me very greatly—the way in which the internet is used in relation to pornography. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has talked about this on previous occasions. I have had a particular problem with two or three clergy in my diocese who have innocently thought that accessing child pornography on the internet was somehow not as serious as interfering directly with an actual human being. Of course, the law quite properly says that accessing child pornography on the internet is to be complicit in the actual original abuse. People have that sort of innocent view of the internet so often. The more checks and balances that we can introduce, the better.
If the net effect of this Bill is that the advertising of online gambling is much more in our face and much more prevalent, it behoves us to put in place what protections we can. I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for introducing the amendment. We are also signed up to it. The noble Lord spoke at length about the issues that he wanted to raise, building on the meeting that he kindly organised, at which I was also present. I endorse what has been said by other noble Lords who were there, including the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
The interesting thing about gambling, to me, coming to it relatively unskilled in this area, is that it is one of those areas about which we make a set of assumptions when we approach it, then we discover as we get closer to it that they do not stand up. For example, one thinks of addiction very much in terms of what substance people are taking that has a chemical effect on their body which makes them addicted. But with gambling, all the signs, evidence and research suggest that we are dealing with addictive activity, but there is no physical substance. Of course, it may well be, as the right reverend Prelate was saying, that something about the internet has a way of interacting with our neurons and has an effect that we do not yet fully understand. There is absolutely no doubt, from the reading that I have done for these debates, and from the evidence that we heard at that powerful meeting, that we are talking about something really rather serious and deep-seated worries should flow from that. It is not that the problem is extremely widespread—it is not—but the numbers are still significant. If we are talking about 450,000 people in our society, of course, we as a responsible society should take action to try to help them.
The situation, as I understand it, is that the regulatory position is very clear. There has to be a process for self-exclusion, because it is recognised that it is a helpful way to do it. It may not be the only way to get people away from gambling and it may not be sufficient on its own, but at least—as long as the evidence is there that it is helpful—we must make sure that the regulatory framework supports it. It is obviously right that, for those who obtain a licence to operate in current systems, and in future systems envisaged by this Bill, we need to see the self-exclusion procedures in place. I do not think any of us would be against that, but I have a problem in understanding why it is sufficient for the Government to argue that simply having a voluntary scheme operated by those who perpetrate the harm is sufficient in this case. The evidence that we have—and the very moving testimony that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne—suggests that those affected by this, those who are addicted and those who are trying to help, say that simply having the mechanism available on a case-by-case basis, on every website that they go to, as it may be regulated in future, and therefore having available the ability to self-exclude, is not sufficient.
If it is not sufficient, what system can we put in place to make sure that it works? Again, the evidence shows that the detailed proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, seems to work for those with whom we have been in touch. Therefore, it seems to me a bit perverse for the Government to continue to say that they do not think that any further action is required in this regard. But what are they saying? I hope that when the noble Baroness responds, she will try to tease out the wording in the letter that we received yesterday from the Minister, which states:
“But this issue is not standing still: the Gambling Commission has indicated that it will be reviewing the self-exclusion provisions as part of a wider exercise to strengthen player protection, with the aim of significant progress within six months towards the establishment of a national remote gambling exclusion scheme”.
That text is not in capitals; I capitalised it as I said it.
That seems to suggest that there is at least the option of having something that will meet the criterion emerging from this evening’s debate—namely, that there must be something that will work for those people who are addicted. It must be something that does not mean they are constantly coming across additional websites which are not part of the scheme. It should, if possible, work with areas that are not yet regulated, although I understand that will be difficult. Certainly, if it were possible to keep open the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, until such time as the review is completed, that would help us a lot in dealing with the issue behind this amendment.
We are not saying that that is the only way in which this issue can be tackled. However, given what we have heard today and at meetings, I am certainly persuaded that this is something which works. Therefore, if it does the trick, we should keep it in play until such time as all the evidence is available.
It is becoming a theme of our discussions today that we are offering the Minister the chance to get this right at the next pass. My noble friend Lady Jones was a bit nervous about the issue of the watershed and I have my concerns about this big and important matter. As a responsible society, we should take action in this regard. The noble Baroness will say, when she responds, that there is a review and will ask why we should anticipate it. I understand that, but I hope she will recognise that we will want to come back to this issue if satisfactory progress is not made. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and the very powerful speeches made tonight on this matter. I hope to hear some good news from the noble Baroness when she responds.
Baroness Jolly
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, for his amendment, which seeks to create a centralised self-exclusion scheme. I seek to reassure him with regard to the Secretary of State’s letter and with regard to the noble Lord’s suggestion that gambling is being liberalised. The Government do not see this as a liberalising Bill. It ensures that all operators who currently advertise in Britain, and wish to do so in the future, are required to have a Gambling Commission licence. This is consistent with what the Secretary of State was saying.
Problem gambling is debilitating and I reassure noble Lords that the Government take this extremely seriously. I am in absolutely no doubt about the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to this. Problem gambling is not only debilitating for the gambler himself or herself, but creates a heavy burden on their families and on society at large. I was not at the relevant presentation but I have heard that it was very powerful. Strategies to prevent and address problem gambling are key aspects of the social responsibility obligations set out in the Gambling Commission’s licence conditions and a priority within the Government’s approach to gambling more generally. Self-exclusion is a very important tool to assist those who are experiencing problem gambling or wish to exclude themselves to prevent it.
Under the Gambling Commission’s existing licence conditions, all licensed operators are required to have effective procedures in place to allow consumers to self-exclude. Therefore, once the Bill is enacted, all remote gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission will be required to offer self-exclusion to their customers. This marks a real step forward in increasing player protection for British consumers and will mean that future improvements in this area by the Gambling Commission will apply to all operators selling into the British market.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate and I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say. I very much welcome the fact that the Government have moved a long way on one-stop shop self-exclusion since the beginning of the passage of this Bill in another place—from clear opposition in the Commons to commending research in the Lords—and they now talk of making significant progress in the next six months towards creating a one-stop shop self-exclusion mechanism.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can she clarify that it is the clear and deliberate intention of the Government to establish a national self-exclusion scheme for remote gamblers? Can she confirm that it will happen? Secondly, can she provide a little more detail on the timing? In the letter from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reference was made to making significant progress in the next six months but there was no reference to when the Government hope that the arrangement might be in place. Finally, can she confirm that the new arrangement will be statutory in the sense that it will be achieved under the Gambling Commission licensing conditions that are upheld by the 2005 Act?
Baroness Jolly
I am sorry. Would the noble Lord mind repeating his third question to me?
Lord Browne of Belmont
Can the Minister confirm that the new arrangement will be statutory in the sense that it will be achieved under the Gambling Commission licensing conditions that are upheld by the 2005 Act?
Baroness Jolly
That was really fast work by those in the Box, for which I thank them. The report is due in May 2014. Having made a decision, we will then need to move as fast as is practically and technically possible, because this is not the sort of thing that we can just turn to in the morning and switch on. We need to decide what we are going to do. That is our intention, if it is practical and possible to do so, and it will form part of the licence conditions.
Lord Browne of Belmont
I am very grateful for the Minster’s reply. Perhaps I may ask just one further question and I do not think that there will be a problem with this. Will the Minister undertake to meet me and online problem gamblers to listen to their stories and to allow their experience to feed through into the development of the one-stop shop?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Perhaps I may interject and ask the Minister for clarification arising out of the answer that she gave. I simply want to be sure that the scheme that she talked of will be comprehensive and compulsory.
Baroness Jolly
We need to make a decision when we have seen what the report says. There is no point in having something that is not comprehensive. I have explained that it is part of the Gambling Commission licence so it will therefore be compulsory.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, on the basis of the Minister’s replies to my questions, I congratulate the Government on the significant steps that they have taken to date. Since the Bill entered the Commons, they have moved forward in relation to self-exclusion and I hope that we will be able to make more progress as time goes on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
“Cheating at gamblingCheating at gambling: amendments to section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005
(1) In section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), for the words “two years” substitute “ten years”.
(2) In section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), cheating at gambling may, in particular, consist of—
(a) a person engaging in conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or event contingency—(i) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or the event contingency, and(ii) intending to obtain a financial advantage, or to cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with any betting on the event or the event contingency (whether or not a financial advantage was actually obtained or a financial disadvantage was actually caused),(b) a person offering to engage in, or encouraging another person to engage in, conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or event contingency—(i) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or event contingency, and(ii) intending to obtain a financial advantage, or to cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with any betting on the event or the event contingency (whether or not a financial advantage was actually obtained or a financial disadvantage was actually caused),(c) a person entering into an agreement or arrangement in respect of conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or event contingency—(i) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct the subject of the agreement or arrangement corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or event contingency, and(ii) intending to obtain a financial advantage, or to cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with any betting on the event or the event contingency (whether or not a financial advantage was actually obtained or a financial disadvantage was actually caused),(d) a person encouraging another person to conceal from a relevant authority conduct, or an agreement or arrangement in respect of conduct, that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or event contingency—(i) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or event contingency, and(ii) intending to obtain a financial advantage, or cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with any betting on the event or event contingency (whether or not a financial advantage was actually obtained or a financial disadvantage was actually caused),(e) a relevant person—in each case, where the relevant information possessed by that relevant person is relevant to the bet concerned.(i) betting on an event or event contingency, or (ii) encouraging another person to bet on an event or event contingency in a particular way (whether or not that other person actually bet on the event or event contingency concerned), or(iii) communicating the relevant information possessed by that relevant person, or causing that relevant information to be communicated, to another person who the first person knows or ought reasonably to know would, or would be likely to, bet on the event or event contingency (whether or not that other person actually bet on the event or event contingency concerned),in each case, where the relevant information possessed by that relevant person is relevant to the bet concerned.(3B) In subsection (3A)—
“bet” and “betting” includes (without prejudice to the generality of section 9)—
(a) placing, accepting or withdrawing a bet, and(b) causing a bet to be placed, accepted or withdrawn,but, for the purposes of subsection (3A) only, shall be limited to bets placed, accepted or withdrawn by means of remote communication,“causing a financial disadvantage” includes—
(a) causing a financial disadvantage to another person, and(b) inducing a third person to do something that results in another person suffering a financial disadvantage—whether the financial disadvantage is permanent or temporary,“conduct” means an act or omission to do an act,
“conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of an event or an event contingency” means conduct that—
(a) affects or, if engaged in, would or would be likely to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event or event contingency, and(b) is contrary to the standards of integrity that a reasonable person would expect of persons in a position to affect the outcome of any type of betting on the event or event contingency,“encouraging” includes inciting, inducing, persuading, urging, threatening or pressurising,
“engaging in conduct” means—
(a) doing an act, or(b) omitting to do an act,“event contingency” means a contingency connected to an event,
“obtaining a financial advantage” includes—
(a) obtaining a financial advantage for oneself or another person, and (b) inducing a third person to do something that results in obtaining a financial advantage for oneself or for another person, and (c) retaining a financial advantage that one has,whether the financial advantage is permanent or temporary,“relevant authority” means—
(a) a member of a police force, or(b) the Commission, or(c) any person or body listed in Schedule 6, or(d) any other authority of a kind as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order,“relevant information” means information in connection with an event or event contingency about conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or event contingency,
“relevant person” means a person who possesses relevant information and knows that, or is reckless as to whether, that relevant information is about conduct that corrupts or would corrupt a betting outcome of the event or event contingency.
(3C) A person will be taken to have intended to obtain a financial advantage, or cause a financial disadvantage, if, and only if, that person—
(a) intended to obtain a financial advantage, or to cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with betting on an event or event contingency, or(b) was aware that another person intended to obtain a financial advantage, or to cause a financial disadvantage, in connection with betting on an event or event contingency as a result of the conduct concerned.””
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
My Lords, I move this amendment because I believe passionately in the power of sport, which does so much good in society. I believe that we have a duty to protect sport from those who seek to interfere with its integrity for financial gain by match fixing.
We recently had an excellent debate in Grand Committee about the importance of competitive sport—the skills, health benefits and pleasure that it brings to millions who take part in it. Sport, whether people take part in it or watch it, has the power to unite a nation and thrill the billions who watch across the world. All this is threatened by match fixing. If supporters cannot trust an event to be genuinely clean and fair and an honest competition, it will diminish in value and all belief in its authenticity will be lost.
I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord Moynihan cannot be with us. He was intending to lead this amendment on cheating in gambling and he is of course an expert on the problems of this subject, having been Minister for Sport and, more recently, chairman of the British Olympic Association. He backs wholeheartedly this amendment and has in recent years been on working groups at the International Olympic Committee on match fixing. Perhaps I may remind this House that in the run-up to the Olympic Games in London 2012 it was interesting that the president of the International Olympic Committee at that time, Jacques Rogge, opined that the greatest threat to the Games in London was illegal gambling activity.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan wishes me to convey his apologies to noble Lords for not being present. Urgent business has taken him overseas. He asked me to relay just how important he sees the fight against the match fixers. He describes this amendment as vital. To use his words:
“Going right to the heart of integrity in sport and the fight against irregular and illegal betting is critical if we are to maintain the integrity of sport on which all international sport and, indeed, all sport depend. In my work at the International Olympic Committee, which has sought to define a common approach in the fight against irregular and illegal betting, we identified one of the most important things that can be done: to get nation states to strengthen their offences of cheating at gambling to influence sporting events”.
In Committee, several noble Lords urged the Government to look more widely at the legislative framework for gambling. Many of those who administer sport feel that there is now a need for clear and specific laws against match fixing to cover all activities which fixers might engage in around a sporting event, with clear definitions, including match fixing, spot fixing and the passing on of inside information. This would improve considerably the current Gambling Act which does not, as such, provide any specific definitions. They also want to introduce stricter penalties by increasing the current maximum sentence of two years to 10 years in line with the penalties applied to serious fraud offences. We are told that the low level of penalty in the Gambling Act is one reason why prosecutors may not seek to use this measure.
The measure would create a strong deterrent effect as sports bodies will be able to point to this legislation to warn and educate participants about the risks associated with being caught cheating. If the United Kingdom were to strengthen the legislative framework, it would become an exemplar nation on this issue and would catch up with the advances in such legislation in Australia. Perhaps it might catch up in cricket a little later as well. As an example, the England and Wales Cricket Board would like to see more effective measures taken against match fixing in other countries where cricket is played. It would be an advantage to be able to point to effective measures in our UK market before calling for improvement in other countries. In the absence of adequate legislation, the burden falls on sports governing bodies to prosecute offenders under their own disciplinary charges in circumstances where the sport does not have the same recourse to investigate as the police and other relevant bodies and does not possess the same deterrent penalties as with legislation.
The current offence of cheating is to be found under Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. It states:
“A person commits an offence if he … (a) cheats at gambling, or (b) does anything for the purpose of enabling or assisting another person to cheat at gambling”.
Noble Lords will immediately note that this is a very general clause which does not specifically criminalise the acts of fixing—either match fixing or the more common and harder to detect form of spot fixing. It simply is not designed to protect the integrity of sport. I believe that there has been only one prosecution under the Gambling Act in several years. Prosecutors instead use the fraud and conspiracy offences which were designed for different purposes and are now being used where possible to shoehorn in charges to fit a sports corruption context. It is of course worth reminding ourselves that we are not replacing any offences here. We are merely adding further strength to the fight against fixing which must equal best practice. As mentioned, there has been a dearth of criminal prosecutions under the Act for fixing offences in sport and I wonder whether that in part is reflective of the fact that the existing statutes were fundamentally flawed.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport commissioned a report in 2010 into the integrity of sport. Its primary recommendation for government was that the definition of “cheating” in the Gambling Act 2005 should be reviewed and given greater clarity— as this amendment does. Will the Minister consider establishing a review into the most appropriate way to address the offence of cheating, as recommended by the DCMS Parry commission’s report in 2010?
Integrity in sport is a challenge for every Government and for every sports governing body in the world. It is our duty and responsibility to make sure that our domestic market is regulated as effectively as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have taken no part in proceedings on the Bill so far, but I will take the opportunity tonight to say a few words in support of what I consider to be an important and significant amendment. My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint ran through the technicalities with great precision and the hour is late, so I will not repeat her arguments but will restrict myself to three separate points.
I asked myself why people consider a couple of years’ imprisonment a relatively light punishment and not a serious deterrent for a serious match fixer. For many people, it seems a victimless crime—except, perhaps, for the bookmakers, who as a group do not command much public sympathy. When I began my career in the City, there was another victimless crime—or rather, a crime that was believed to be victimless—which was insider dealing. In my generation it was perhaps not as widespread as in the previous generation, when you were not paid much money because it was expected that you would trade inside in order to make good your rather inadequate wages. Undoubtedly quite a lot of it went on.
When one asks why people accepted that situation, it was because the crime was believed to be victimless—and, if it was not victimless, it was extraordinarily difficult to prosecute and eradicate, because one could never catch up with insider dealers. Any law would be unenforceable, and an unenforceable law would have no merit. More importantly, if it was unenforceable it ran the risk of bringing the wider law into disrepute.
I have not had a chance to glance over the Minister’s shoulder to see the notes that he will use in a few minutes, but I suspect that there will be a good deal about the issue of unenforceability as a reason for not wishing to accept my noble friend’s amendment. However, to go back for a moment to the example of insider dealing, over a period of years, as the legal framework changed, the attitude to enforcement changed and the reputational risk increased, the prevalence and acceptability of insider dealing diminished. While I will not claim that it does not exist now in the City, its instance is pretty small.
That is what this amendment seeks to achieve: a higher penalty, linked to a higher reputational risk for engaging in this crime, so that its frequency is likely to be very much reduced. For match fixing is not a victimless crime. Its victims are not, of course, those on the inside, be they investors or gamblers; it is usually the smaller, poorer and less experienced people who suffer.
That takes me to my second point. If I could see further down my noble friend’s speaking note, I think I would see that he will emphasise not just the difficulties of domestic enforcement but the much greater challenge posed by the extraterritorial nature of so many of these crimes, which seem to have overseas origins. Leaving aside the desirability of our making the greatest possible effort to root out match fixing completely in the UK, my noble friend on the Front Bench should remember that Her Majesty’s Government have not always found extraterritoriality to be an insuperable bar. The Bribery Act, although not uncontroversial in its application, requires UK companies to take responsibility for their agents overseas, even where the agent is not directly employed by them. There are precedents and experience in this area which we could build on to develop our activities to inhibit, prevent and eradicate match fixing in the UK.
To conclude, it seems that this modest amendment sends a clear signal that the heat is being turned up as regards this crime: 10 years on conviction, not two years, could not be clearer. I shall of course listen very carefully to my noble friend’s reply in due course. The Hippocratic oath says, I think, “First, do no harm”. I want to hear from him not why the enforcement of this amendment will be difficult—I am sure it will be—but why its existence on the stature book would do any harm or not take us in the right direction towards eradicating this extremely unpleasant and, apparently, increasingly prevalent activity.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I speak in favour of Amendment 8, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Heyhoe Flint and Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson. This amendment not only comes from all sides of the House but is in the names of great sporting personalities who have participated at the highest level of elite sport. I support them in their contention that sport must maintain the highest levels of integrity and be recognised to be fair and honest. Sport governing bodies have been relentless in stamping out cheating, whether through drugs, unfair equipment or fraudulent activity, in order to maintain the public’s interest and trust. We all enjoy the pursuit of excellence and recognise that competition is the spur to improvement. The public will turn away, sponsors withdraw funds and participants lose interest if they detect any level of cheating or corruption, or any lack of fair play.
The amendment creates a clear and specific offence of cheating that covers all activities that fixers may engage in. All sports would have this offence available under the Gambling Act. Recently, we have witnessed the difficulties cricketing authorities had to face in prosecuting and getting convictions regarding the bowling of no-balls by Pakistani cricketers. This situation could easily occur with throw-ins and other events in professional football. I understand that the authorities had to go to great lengths to enforce fair play and that they went ahead under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. This offence will enable a strong deterrent from stricter penalties to warn and educate all sportspersons. Professional bodies such as the Professional Footballers’ Association in soccer can underline to their members the dangers and risks associated with being caught cheating.
I urge the Government to take this amendment seriously and, if they cannot accept it tonight, to be amenable to bringing forward their own amendments at Third Reading, otherwise similar amendments will be pressed very vigorously then.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Grantchester that I have joined a rather elite and special grouping in turning up on this list. I certainly cannot pretend to have, in any sense, any quality that matches theirs in terms of the sporting achievements they have had. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I was a not-indifferent squash player, but I am afraid that does not take me far towards either the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, or the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson or Lady Heyhoe Flint.
I apologise for intruding on their party but I do so because this is a really interesting amendment, and I am rather annoyed we did not think of it ourselves on this side of the House. The 2005 Act was much castigated earlier on in our debates but is still a rather good Act in its way. It goes out of its way to make it clear that it is not dealing with the integrity of sport—this point has been made already—and does not attempt to try to deal with the actual issues around the playing of sport. Its actions are about gambling, and sport is only one of a number of things that people can gamble on. We should not therefore expect that Bill to carry us all the way to where we want to get to in this new area, which is about trying to make sure that the sport that we all love and enjoy is played to the highest standards.
I talked earlier about the need for integrity. It is an issue that we need to think very hard about. It is not necessarily the case that if you follow the argument that I am about to make through to the end we would end up with simply amending the current Bill; I suspect our ambitions are a bit broader than that. When the Minister responds, perhaps he could reflect on the question that has been posed implicitly in the speeches we have heard today and explicitly outside by a number of people who are now saying that there is something slightly odd about the way in which we pay so much attention to the process of gambling around the sporting activity but we do not think hard enough about what we need to do to ensure that the sporting activity itself is as clean and above suspicion as it should be. That is the way in which I want to approach this.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that we were talking about something that is called a victimless crime and pointed out that that was a contradiction in terms. I follow him on that: his point is very well made. My noble friend Lord Grantchester, who has substantial experience in running a sports club of great distinction, knows all too well about some of the issues that have arisen there.
It is interesting that the only serious case we have seen in recent years, which involved spread betting rather than fixed-odds arrangements, was prosecuted under a conspiracy to defraud offence and not under the provisions of the Gambling Act. On my reading of it, that is not unreasonable because the Gambling Act does not go in that direction but, if that is the case, the point was made earlier about the need to level up the tariffs on all these approaches to try to clean up sport—they need to be the same. So we are talking about a 10-year penalty being the standard for crimes against sporting activity. If anybody affects the integrity of the sports that we are concerned about, we should be able to use a range of penalties and approaches to ensure that the person is nailed.
We have looked at the number of prosecutions for match fixing in sport and there seems to be about one a year at the moment. Although, as I have said, there are difficulties in raising these offences, it is important to recognise that they do take place. There is evidence that there is quite a lot of match-fixing activity going on, not necessarily all related to gambling, and that is one of my points.
The DCMS itself has a sports integrity review. It must have been ahead of the game in thinking that it would need to look at that, and the Rick Parry report calls for further action in this area. Therefore, the onus is on the DCMS to come forward with proposals on this. The European Parliament and Commission have called for all member states to have specific match-fixing legislation. Again, one might ask the Minister what action the department will take to respond to that call. The amendment before us derives from evidence of recent work in Australia, where legislation has recently been introduced. The amendment is based on a model that seems to be working well and is widely seen in the sport as an exemplar.
To return to my first point, although we must be thinking about the question of what to do to strengthen our sport, of which gambling is a part but not the full amount, it is interesting that the gambling industry supports this approach. Sue Rossiter, director of projects and policy at the Remote Gambling Association, which supports the amendment, says:
“Cheating is already an offence under the Gambling Act and match-fixing falls into that category. But anything which further clarifies the fact that it’s illegal is welcomed by us. Players should be made aware that if they get involved in match-fixing, they’re involved in a criminal activity wherever they are. We work closely with sports governing bodies to make sure players are clear about that”.
There is an educational element to this, which will be very important.
This amendment may seem to be at a distance from the main purpose of the Bill but it should not be rejected out of hand. I appeal to the Minister to think about bringing this back at Third Reading for a further debate, when it might be possible to get the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to add their arguments to this. We will have to fix this in the future if we do not fix it now.
The sport that we play in Britain somehow makes a huge contribution to our culture. As my noble friend Lord Grantchester said, if people feel that the games they watch are in some sense fake then, to quote from “The Hunger Games”—a recent film that I am sure all noble Lords have seen—the games will not be quite as enjoyable as they might otherwise have been. That is rather an unfortunate and sad analogy but I hope some of it might live long in memory.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment. I very much agree with her and regret that my noble friend Lord Moynihan is not with us tonight. I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this debate.
Match fixing is an issue about which I know many of your Lordships feel very strongly. The Government fully share those concerns. Match fixing has no place in sport and we must do all we can to eradicate it. That is precisely why the Secretary of State held a match-fixing summit on 10 December and the Sport and Tourism Minister followed that up with a second meeting on 3 February. That work remains a priority. I emphasise that Ministers in the department see this as extremely important ongoing work.
My noble friend’s amendment suggests that Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, covering the offence of cheating at gambling, is inadequate in its current form. The Government recognise that sports governing bodies have concerns about that section. Indeed, sports governing bodies were invited on 3 February to provide case studies that they believe demonstrate the failings of Section 42 in dealing with gambling-related match fixing. The Government will consider any such evidence when it is supplied. We have received two case studies to date and are aware that there may be others in the pipeline. However, we have yet to see robust evidence demonstrating a problem with Section 42 as opposed to other factors such as lack of evidence. Indeed, lack of evidence of a link between match fixing and corrupt betting would make it difficult to pursue a successful prosecution under either Section 42 or my noble friend’s amendment.
I should also say to my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint that Section 42, as a gambling provision, can apply only where there is evidence of cheating at gambling, as has already been discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, that is why we have long established and recognised that other criminal offences may need to be used, given that match fixing can be realised in various forms.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also referred to Section 42 in the context of negotiations on the Council of Europe’s draft convention. The Government recently reviewed Section 42 in that context. All the legal teams and others came to the conclusion that Section 42 as currently drafted, together with other fraud and corruption offences already on the statute book, gives prosecutors the tools required to deal with the circumstances that might constitute match fixing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there have been some criticisms of the 2005 Act and, perhaps, some of its consequences. At the time, Section 42 was deliberately crafted to be a broad offence in which “cheating” was intended to have its normal, everyday meaning. The provision expressly extends to actions that involve actual or attempted deception or interference with the processes involved in the conduct of gambling or any other race, game, event or process to which gambling relates. That was done precisely to ensure that it could be used in a wide range of circumstances. That is why we are concerned about changing it. I emphasise that point.
Section 42 also clearly spells out that the offence is committed not just by the person who cheats but also by a person who does something for the purpose of assisting or enabling another person to cheat. That means that Section 42 already covers all the ground that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to add. Section 42 already applies to both remote and non-remote types of betting, whereas this amendment applies only to remote betting. We therefore believe the amendment could create confusion and that it is better to retain the existing provision for that reason.
My noble friend’s amendment would also raise the custodial tariff for Section 42 offences from two to 10 years. It has been argued that an increase in custodial sentencing will both act as a deterrent to those who may be involved in criminal match fixing, and influence law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute more cases.
I will explain to your Lordships why we believe that there is no need for a change in the tariff. The Government consider that the penalties in Section 42 remain proportionate and appropriate, and are consistent with other offences in the Gambling Act. There is nothing to suggest that the threat of a two-year jail sentence is not a sufficient deterrent or that law enforcement agencies do not take match fixing sufficiently seriously.
The UK has a number of legislative tools at its disposal to combat corruption of sports competitions. The toolkit naturally includes Section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005, where there is a link with betting. We can also use other fraud and corruption offences where that link with betting cannot be established. It does not mean that Section 42 is inadequate simply because it cannot be applied in every situation. When a sportsperson is found to be engaged in match fixing not linked to betting, the penalties under the bribery and fraud Acts are severe, as your Lordships have already said.
The fight against match fixing is not just about legislation. The UK’s approach to combating match fixing, based on effective collaboration between the Government, the regulator, betting operators, sports governing bodies and the law, is working and, indeed, is highly regarded internationally.
I emphasise that the Government take the fight against match fixing extremely seriously. I do not know whether the match-fixing summit was the first, but it is an indication that the Secretary of State and Ministers take this matter very seriously and want to work with the sports governing bodies.
My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint asked whether the Government would be prepared to undertake a formal review of Section 42, in line with what the Parry review suggested. As I said, in the cross-government review of Section 42 in the context of the European convention on match fixing, we concluded, and the legal advice was, that Section 42 was robust as written. However, of course we are willing to consider carrying out a review if and when sports bodies provide robust evidence demonstrating that there actually is a problem with Section 42. That is the position that we have come to.
I will be asking my noble friend to withdraw her amendment—not because we think that match fixing is not a priority; we do. The lawyers have looked at the provisions of Section 42 and we are of the view that, until we have proper and robust evidence that elements of Section 42 are not working properly, we think it is premature and unwise to move. I have not gone back to read Hansard, but I have been informed that Section 42 was drafted to capture as much of the conceivable parameters as possible. That is why it was couched in the way it was.
I have looked into this matter very strongly because I know that it is of extreme concern to the sporting world and beyond, to those who enjoy sport. I have looked into it. I have sought to outline the reasons why we think that Section 42 is robust but, as I said, we are willing and look forward to hearing from sports bodies if they can come forward with robust evidence, which we will then consider very thoroughly. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
My Lords, we are moving into extra time. I thank the Minister for his responses and, in most cases, his assurances. I know that there has been a great amount of background work and energy put into what he referred to as a small or niche Bill. I thank the Bill team sincerely for the courtesy of the meetings which we have had and I apologise for not being fully attentive in the earlier debate on Amendment 4, when I think that I must have been dreaming in the outfield.
Perhaps I might reiterate that sport has had and has concerns and, to a certain extent, I am very aware of the fact that the Government are seeking to deal with them. In the eyes of sport and in the protection of its integrity, even though my noble friend the Minister referred to the Bill in the early days as a small Bill, I think that sport considers it to be a big Bill because this is a growing threat to the integrity of sport. I accept the assurances from the Minister in true sporting spirit. I came off the substitutes’ bench to support my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who bowled me a googly when he told me that he had to be abroad at this stage and was unable to contribute. I have a feeling that he may continue to pursue his concerns on his return but, in the hope that he will not then put me into the sin bin, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.