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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
3. What his future plans for legal aid are.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
11. What his future plans for legal aid are.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We are implementing the reforms of litigation procurement and Crown court advocacy fees that we announced last month. Although making fee reductions is unavoidable, we have listened to the professions wherever we can and taken concrete steps to ease the impact of the changes. Moreover, the Justice Secretary has given a personal commitment that this Government will not seek further savings from criminal legal aid.
The Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency keep the operation of both the criminal and civil legal aid schemes under continual review. The Government plan to undertake a post-implementation review of the legal aid provisions within the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 within three to five years of implementation. That review will include an assessment of the impact of the reforms implemented during that period.
Stephen Timms
The cost of legal aid came in at £56 million less than was budgeted last year, and research commissioned by the Law Society from Oxford Economics argues that falling crime will reduce the legal aid bill by £80 million by 2018-19. What assessment has the Minister made of the argument that the spending cuts will be delivered without the scale of service reductions he is currently proposing?
Mr Vara
We need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that legal aid expenditure in this country—for England and Wales—is some £2 billion, which makes our system one of the most expensive in the world. Even after the reductions have gone through, the bill will still be one of the most generous in the world. We have to ensure that these reductions go through so that the legal aid budget remains sustainable.
Paul Blomfield
After a legal aid-funded judicial review of a negative reasonable grounds decision, the Home Office agreed that a Sheffield resident was a victim of trafficking. Under the new regime she would not pass the residence test for legal aid. The Government have been making much recently of their commitment to tackle human trafficking, so will they now reconsider their decision to reject the recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to exempt from the residence test all cases where the status of a trafficking victim is contested?
Andy McDonald
Is the Secretary of State worried by the increasing number of defendants in serious cases who cannot access legal advice following the 30% cut in advocates’ fees?
Mr Vara
It is important to put things into perspective. The 30% reduction applies to only a tiny number of criminal cases—they are called “very high cost cases” and constitute less than 1% of Crown court cases. The reductions we are making will ensure that the barristers who do that sort of work are still receiving good fee income.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
It is generally recognised that the criminal legal aid provider market is fragmented, underinvested and unsustainable, so has my hon. Friend yet been able to assess whether his reforms will lead to the necessary market consolidation?
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend makes a good point: it is important to recognise that the legal market has changed and we need to change with it. We very much hope that our proposals will ensure that we have a sustainable legal aid budget which ensures that those who need legal aid assistance will be able to get it, from both solicitors and advocates.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend made an assessment of how much of the criminal legal aid budget is spent on cases where the defendant maintains they are innocent only to plead guilty at the last minute before the trial?
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
In their response to the JCHR report on legal aid reform, the Government agreed to exempt sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act 1989 from the residence test. However, that exemption will not include judicial review, despite the fact that it is often the only remedy available, thereby apparently undermining the exemption that has been made. Will the Minister look closely at expanding the exemption to include judicial review?
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
20. On how many occasions has the Attorney-General had to appoint an amicus curiae as a result of the Government’s legal aid cuts?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Statistics show that the number of non-molestation orders issued by the English courts has recently increased, and there is some suggestion that they may be used as an additional route to obtaining legal aid. Will my hon. Friend undertake to investigate that further?
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), that the Government’s cuts to legal aid are “unarguably harsh”? Will the Minister correct his own overestimate of the earnings of legal aid lawyers, which the UK Statistics Authority yesterday called “potentially misleading”? Is it not time that the Ministry of Justice ministerial team put themselves in order?
Mr Vara
It is rather rich of the hon. Gentleman to speak about legal aid. The Opposition’s manifesto made it abundantly clear that they would cut legal aid. He and his colleagues lack any credibility unless they put on the record what cuts they would make and, more importantly, whether they would reverse the cuts that we are making.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend look at the workings of the Legal Aid Board, so that we never again see a case such as the one in which the board in Essex awarded legal aid to a violent husband to employ a private detective to pursue a battered wife to my constituency?
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
2. What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
12. What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
15. What progress he has made on his plans for changes to the probation service.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
We are making good progress with our transforming rehabilitation reforms, which will realign current probation structures to address the gap that sees 50,000 short-sentenced prisoners released on to the streets each year with little support. The new structures will come into effect on 1 June. The process of reallocating staff to those new structures is now complete.
Chris Williamson
The Secretary of State has a reputation for making policy based on ideology rather than evidence, as we saw with the shambolic Work programme that he bequeathed to the Department for Work and Pensions. Now his own officials have warned him that
“an unacceptable drop in operational performance”
is causing
“delivery failures and reputational damage”.
Why is he continuing with the reforms when all the informed opinion is shouting at him to stop?
Chris Grayling
The Opposition continue to refer to the planning document at the start of the project, and they cannot explain what they would do instead. Their policy is to leave 50,000 people walking the streets and likely to commit serious offences again with no support post-prison. Until the Opposition tell us what they would do to address the problem, which they identified when in government and did nothing about, they will have no credibility.
Mrs Glindon
In some large areas, there have been only a small number of bidders for the service, and the award-winning Northumbria probation trust is down to three bidders. Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many bidders have dropped out since the process started?
Chris Grayling
We have a strong slate of potential bidders in every part of the country, with a good mix of private and voluntary sector expertise and some attractive partnerships that can deliver real results for us. We will see later in the summer who emerges successfully from the bidding process, but I am completely confident that we have a strong candidate in every part of the country.
Grahame M. Morris
The Minister accuses us of looking backwards, but his transforming of rehabilitation services programme is controversial and fraught with difficulties. Does he agree with his permanent secretary, Ursula Brennan, who told the Public Accounts Committee last week that if the Ministry of Justice was not ready to take the next steps, it would not do so—or would he press on regardless?
Chris Grayling
It is precisely because we are confident in the process that we are moving to the next stage. We will take it a step at a time, and we will always take steps to address issues of public safety. The Opposition, having identified the problem of offenders going without supervision, and having legislated to deal with it while in government and then done nothing about it, are now attacking us for wanting to do something about it. They have no ideas themselves.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Will the Lord Chancellor clarify what the procedure will be if a bidder fails, withdraws from a contract or has to be replaced?
Chris Grayling
The benefit of having a national probation service that sits under the umbrella of the Department is that, were a bidder to fail, it would be possible for the Department to take operational control of that area while we retendered the contract. There are proper mechanisms in place to ensure that coverage would continue.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Each year, about 600,000 crimes are committed by people who have already committed criminal acts. That is a shocking level of reoffending. What is my right hon. Friend doing to bring that number down?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is right, and this is at the heart of our reforms. Crime in this country is falling, which is good, and the number of first-time entrants into the criminal justice system is falling, which is also good. Crime is increasingly being committed by those who are going round and round the system. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the rationale for our reforms. If we do nothing about this, there will be more and more victims of crime. I do not want to see that happen, although the Opposition are clearly happy to do so.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Government support a greater role for mutual organisations in the provision of public services, and there has been welcome interest from mutuals in the rehabilitation contracts. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that mutuals will be well placed to participate in the provision of those services?
Chris Grayling
We have had some strong bids from employee groups within the probation service, and we have sought to provide them with as much support as possible. There is a unit in the Cabinet Office that has provided financial and professional support during the bidding process. I have no say in the final decision making process, but I have every hope that staff groups will be involved when those decisions are made in the summer.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
18. My constituents cannot understand why the Government are seeking to use unproven, untested people to carry out this work when Humberside probation service does such a good job. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give to my constituents that he is not taking a risk with public safety?
Chris Grayling
The guarantee I can give the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that we are not removing the people who are doing the job at the moment. We are freeing them operationally to innovate, and we are bringing new skills to the task of rehabilitating offenders. A much greater danger to his constituents would be to do nothing, and to leave all those thousands of offenders with no support or supervision, walking the streets, including in his constituency, and able to commit more crimes.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The fact is that the Secretary of State has had to delay his plans already. His work force are going out on strike, he has a payment-by-results model that pays regardless of results, and 200,000 offenders do not know who will be supervising them. Has he not become so enamoured of his project that he can no longer see, let alone deal with, its many serious flaws?
Chris Grayling
What a load of complete nonsense! The reality is that the Opposition have no idea how to deal with the problem of reoffending. They are in opposition, and we are now less than a year away from a general election, yet I have not the slightest idea of what they would do in our place. I am not prepared to allow a situation to continue in which people are left to walk the streets with no post-prison supervision, resulting in thousands of them reoffending, when we know from the experience of the pilot that we set up in Peterborough that mentoring those offenders can bring down crime significantly.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
4. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending by persistent offenders.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
6. What progress he has made on his reforms to rehabilitation aimed at reducing reoffending.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
On 13 March 2014, the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 received Royal Assent. This Act addresses the gap that sees 50,000 short-sentenced prisoners—those most likely to reoffend—released on to the streets each year with no support, by providing those offenders with supervision in the community for the first time in recent history.
Steve Brine
The Minister will be aware that a major reducing reoffending conference was held in Winchester earlier this month, organised by the high sheriff of Hampshire and the police and crime commissioner. Does he agree that although we must bring short-term persistent offenders into supervision, as we are doing, we must also invest heavily in treatment and give sentencers some real options if the system is to work? That has been done, and successfully, in the Right on Crime initiative in Texas.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we give flexibility to rehabilitation providers to do what they believe will work in turning someone away from crime. He is right that if someone is addicted to drugs or alcohol, giving them the treatment that they require will help in that task. He will also recognise that for those with a mental health problem, it is better to divert them from the criminal justice system in the first place, and that is what we seek to do.
Charlie Elphicke
At my surgery on Friday, I met John who has just been released from prison after serving 20 years for murder. He wants to turn away from crime and do well in our society, but he needs a job. Is it not important that we look at this matter as a cross-departmental issue to get people back into a life where they do well and are really productive?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is right that more than one Government Department needs to turn their attention to this. Of course he will know that we have allowed for changes to be made so that people can have access to the Work programme as soon as they come out of custody. As he says, it is important that all Government Departments work together with us on the rehabilitation agenda, as they have so far.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Reducing reoffending is something on which Justice Ministers right across the United Kingdom are working vigorously. Will the Minister ensure that discussions take place across the devolved regions to ensure that best practice is replicated right across the entire nation?
Jeremy Wright
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that working together to share best practice is important, and we will certainly seek to do that. There are good examples of rehabilitation to be found across the United Kingdom.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
At the heart of the Government’s reforms is the large-scale tendering of services. Does the grotesque debacle of the electronic tagging contract with Buddi not demonstrate that the Minister’s Government is incapable of managing this process efficiently? This is yet another contract where the competition has been ended. A Ministry of Justice statement says that it has had to retender the contract for the supply of new tags.
Jeremy Wright
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I do not agree with the way the hon. Gentleman has represented the situation. The position is this. We will work with a preferred bidder to try to ensure that our needs are met and that we can reach agreement in delivering what will be impressive new technology to help us keep better track of offenders. If we cannot reach agreement with a preferred bidder, we must move on to another provider, and that is what is happening here. Four lots are involved in this particular process. On three of them, things are working as well as we could possibly have expected. In relation to the fourth, there are difficulties, but we are resolving them. What I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome is the use of the technology.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
21. Given that one in four prisoners has a mental health problem, I welcome the news that the Government are providing £25 million to host mental health nurses in police stations. Will the Minister outline how the progress of that pilot scheme is being monitored?
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend is right that the scheme operates from more than one Government Department. It is important that we work together with our colleagues in the Health Department to deliver what he is describing. We will monitor that progress, as will the Health Department. It will be monitored across Government because we want people with mental health problems to be diverted from the criminal justice system.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Under the transforming rehabilitation reform programme, there will be 21 contract package areas but 12 reducing to 10 women’s prisons, so not every area will have a women’s prison, but every area will receive women when they are released from prison. What arrangements will be in place to ensure continuity of support through the gate when a woman returns to a different area from the prison in which she has been incarcerated?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady is of course right that there are fewer female prisons than there are contract package areas, but that is in many ways a good thing because it means that we have fewer women to incarcerate. She is right that we need to think about how the new system will work. The way we will do that is to ensure that rehabilitation providers have the opportunity to be located in a prison. It may not be a prison located within their own contract package area, but they will have a presence so that everyone coming through the custodial system and being released out of it will have the opportunity to speak to a rehabilitation provider and to make the necessary connections while in custody.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
5. What progress he has made in ensuring that the judiciary provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with reasons for their conclusions in appeals against employment and support allowance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The hon. Lady will appreciate that the provision of this information is a matter for the judiciary. However, they have agreed to provide the Department for Work and Pensions and appellants with summary reasons for their decisions in employment and support allowance appeals. That approach was successfully piloted at four tribunal venues from June 2013 and will be rolled out later this year.
Sheila Gilmore
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the most recent statistics show that 45% of ESA appeals are successful. That is a slightly higher figure than in the previous set of statistics and suggests that the flow of information that could ensure that the decisions are right first time is still not happening. When will we see a published proper evaluation of what is going on?
Mr Vara
The pilot programme is now being rolled out and we need to see its full impact. The DWP has found the information it has been given very useful and as a consequence it is in the process of revising the guidance for decision makers. It is to be hoped that the decisions taken as a consequence will be of a much better standard.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In Kettering, benefit claimants who appeal against refusals sometimes have to wait for more than 40 weeks for their appeals to be heard. That is completely unacceptable and involves some of the longest waits in the whole country. What is being done by the Department to tackle these long waiting times?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of very raucous noise from those on the Opposition Benches. The Minister is a very courteous fellow and he is trying to address—[Interruption.] Order. He is trying to address the House. Let us hear him.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
7. What his future plans are for access to judicial review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Judicial review is, and will remain, a vital means of holding public authorities to account, but the Government are concerned about the potential for unmeritorious judicial reviews being used to frustrate decisions that have been properly made, to generate publicity and to cause delay. Last month we announced a package of reforms designed to reduce the number of unmeritorious claims and speed up the process for those claimants who have arguable grounds and a genuine case to put. Most of our reforms will be given effect through the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, which is currently in Committee—a Committee on which the hon. Gentleman is serving.
Mike Kane
Last week, the Public Bill Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill heard evidence from 17 leading experts in the field of judicial review. Is not the Minister just a little concerned that not one of them agrees with the Government’s position as set out in that Bill?
Mr Vara
I am afraid that if the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at that evidence, he will find that one of the very last people to speak—I am thinking of only one person who comes to mind—said that the reforms would be helpful for development. Judicial review is a very good system of holding the Executive to account, but it is our intention to ensure that unmeritorious claims are dealt with so that those that are genuine can go through to help the economy and the taxpayer and ensure, ultimately, that those who want jobs can get them.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that unmeritorious judicial reviews not only bring the judicial system into public disrepute but are frequently a significant financial burden on democratically elected local authorities, which might find their attempts to carry out the wishes of their electorate frustrated?
Mr Vara
That is absolutely the case. Some local authorities are trying to help the economy through projects, only for them to be frustrated by unmeritorious claims. The taxpayer loses out because of the extra costs, the efforts of those who wish the projects to make progress or to have employment in them are stifled and, ultimately, the economy does not recover in the way that it ought to. That is what we are trying to achieve, to put right the consequences of the Opposition’s time in government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
8. What recent representations he has received on the role played by the London mayoralty in the delivery of justice in London.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I have had a number of conversations with the London Mayor regarding the provision of services, particularly those for victims, which I regard as extremely important. We have now been able to release an extra £12 million of victim funding for areas most affected by crime and, subject to the proposals that are made, that will potentially include the capital.
Bob Blackman
As we devolve more power to the Mayor of London, is it not important to devolve the Prison Service and the probation service so that Londoners can hold the Mayor of London to account for the entirety of keeping London safe?
Chris Grayling
We continue to involve the Mayor and the Mayor’s office specialising in justice matters closely in our plans for prisons and probation, but I urge my hon. Friend to be careful about what he wishes for. There are others who are keen to take over MOPAC—the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime—and I have more concerns about their ability to do so. To pick an example purely at random, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was asked recently about his ambitions to be Mayor of London, and he replied that
“if I was at the edge of the box and the ball came my way and I thought I had the best chance of scoring then I might go for it”.
That might explain why he has written a manifesto for London that has no justice policies at all.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister think the Mayor of London should be given more funds from the justice system, when all he seems to want to spend it on is water cannon?
Chris Grayling
It is important that, where we can do so, we ensure we have the right support for a range of services in London, including those for victims. That is the kind of discussion that the Mayor of London and I have been having and will continue to have.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
9. What further plans he has to close courts before 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service continues to keep the use of its estate under review to ensure it meets operational requirements. Any new proposals to close courts or tribunals beyond those already announced would be subject to consultation.
Mr Crausby
For too many years Bolton magistrates court has been dogged by rumour of closure, when what the court needs is stability. Can the Minister assure me that there will be no further change of mind on the future of Bolton magistrates court?
Mr Vara
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, there are no plans at present as regards Bolton magistrates court, but he will appreciate that the court estate has to be kept under review to ensure that it meets operational needs. In the event that anything happens, there will be a consultation. Nothing is planned for Bolton magistrates court.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How many magistrates courts does my hon. Friend think could be closed if they no longer had to deal with television tax evaders?
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Proposals to merge Wrexham and Flintshire magistrates court benches are being carried forward without public consultation. Does the Minister think that is appropriate?
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
In relation to court closures, Medway magistrates court has an excellent virtual court scheme. However, funding has not been renewed for the scheme, which has received national recognition. Will the Minister review that and confirm the Government’s commitment to virtual court schemes?
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
10. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of staffing of the Prison Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
As my hon. Friend knows, we have closed some prison accommodation for a variety of good reasons, and there have been staffing reductions as a result, all achieved without the use of compulsory redundancy. Staffing levels in prisons are currently subject to a detailed benchmarking assessment that takes account of the role and responsibility of each prison.
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, particularly in regard to the closure of Northallerton prison. Can he say how many may have been affected by the use of the voluntary early departure scheme and where those currently working at Northallerton prison will be placed for future duties?
Jeremy Wright
As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there will be a variety of different futures for those leaving Northallerton. She knows already that the decision to close that establishment is no reflection whatever on the efforts of the staff who were based there. I can tell her that 34 staff have taken up the option of voluntary early departure.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Prison numbers have been going up and prison staff going down. The Department’s own figures show that the national tactical response squad, the prison riot squad, was called out 72% more times last year than in 2010, more prisoners and prison staff are being assaulted and deaths in custody were the highest for a decade. To state the obvious, none of that is conducive to rehabilitation. Is any of this the responsibility of this Government, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?
Jeremy Wright
Of course management of the prison estate is the responsibility of this Government, as indeed when the last Government were in power it was theirs. There is a variety of reasons why the tornado teams attend, and the serious incidents that they attend are at roughly half the level they were under the last Government, so the right hon. Gentleman needs to be clear about the statistics he uses. Frankly, if he spent a bit more time doing the job he has and a bit less time chasing the Mayor of London’s job, he might get those things right. But let us get something else very clear. It is important that we maintain a safe, secure and decent estate, and that is exactly what we will do. Where there are increased levels of assault, which I agree are a matter of concern, we need to address that in a number of ways, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
13. What his policy is on support for victims of crimes.
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
The Government are committed to providing more support than ever to victims of crime, and to giving them a louder voice in the criminal justice system. We have implemented a new victims code that tells people what to expect at every stage of the process. We aim to spend up to £100 million to support victims to cope and where possible recover from crime. This is roughly double what we currently spend, with offenders paying a much greater share. Last month we announced the first dedicated fund of £500,000 to support victims of male rape.
Chris Ruane
The Minister speaks of a code of practice. Will he confirm that if it is ignored by the police or the courts, the victim has no recourse whatsoever? The code is, in effect, toothless.
Damian Green
No, I would not say that at all because among our other innovations is a Victims Commissioner, whose basic role is to ensure that the code of practice is taken seriously by the police and by all other parts of the criminal justice system. Victims have much greater protection under this Government than they ever had under the previous Government.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Every year, about 3,000 burglars with 15 or more previous convictions are not sent to prison. How does releasing these people back on to the streets to continue their crime spree help victims of crime? Is it not time that legislation was introduced to ensure that persistent burglars must be sent to prison?
Damian Green
I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the “Transforming Rehabilitation” proposals, which will mean that those receiving even sentences of under 12 months will for the first time receive help in prison, which will ensure that they are much less likely to reoffend when they come out.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Since May 2010, we have had 15 months with no Victims Commissioner at all, and two years with a part-time Victims Commissioner. What kind of signal does the Minister think that sends about this Government’s attitude to victims of crime?
Damian Green
I think that we have an excellent Victims Commissioner, who does the job extremely well.
Damian Green
One of the most ironic heckles I have ever heard is the shadow Justice Secretary shouting “Part-time”, when that is the method that he adopts to his job.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
About 550 people lose their lives in homicides throughout the country each year. For the families left bereaved by these tragedies, the dreadful impact can last for many years afterwards. Victims of crime often need long-term or even life-long support. Will the Minister therefore explain why the Government’s new homicide service will not be providing services to families who have lost a loved one prior to April 2010?
Damian Green
As the hon. Gentleman says, the homicide service will deal with those who have been bereaved by homicide over the past few years, but more money has gone to local police and crime commissioners, and they can commission additional services, which may well include some of the groups that I know are worried about the services they are providing to more distant victims of homicide. I can assure him that I am equally concerned about that, but the PCCs will deal with them.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
14. What recent representations he has received on compensation for people with pleural plaques.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
We have received a small number of representations on pleural plaques over the past few months, including some from Members of Parliament on behalf of their constituents.
Mr Hepburn
Does the Minister agree that the current system of compensation for pleural plaques is grossly unfair? People with pleural plaques living in Scotland or Northern Ireland qualify for compensation, but those living in England or Wales do not. Does he think that is unfair, and is he going to do anything about it?
Mr Vara
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are different legal jurisdictions, which means that there will occasionally be differences. In the light of the current medical evidence, the Government do not consider it appropriate to overturn the House of Lords judgment that the condition of pleural plaques is not compensatable under the civil law.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
16. What recent progress has been made on the release of papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
The hon. Lady will know that the Cabinet Office holds the key to releasing the remaining documents. I am grateful for the letter she wrote to me and hope she has received my reply. I am conscious that she has a family interest in the matter as well as a political one. I remind her that we adopted the system that was in place under the previous Government, according to which matters that touch on national security are subject to exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. We are talking about only one document and three paragraphs in each of three other documents. If she addresses her request to the Cabinet Office ahead of the review, I hope that she will get an encouraging response.
Katy Clark
The Minister must accept that it is difficult to believe that, more than 40 years after the events, there could be any real national security issues. He is aware that on 23 January this House voted for the publication of the documents. Is he willing to meet me and other interested Members to discuss how we can ensure that the documents are published at the earliest opportunity?
Simon Hughes
The earliest opportunity will be next year, as I made clear to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) in the debate that he secured. I also offered him the opportunity to discuss it with colleagues, and I am very open to that. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Lord Chancellor satisfied himself that it was appropriate for the documents to be kept under Cabinet closure, but the matter will be open to full review next year.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
17. What his policy is on the use by prisoners of musical instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
In accordance with the revised policy on incentives and earned privileges, prisoners on the standard or enhanced level of the IEP scheme are allowed, if permitted by their governor, to have in their possession, and at their own expense, some musical instruments. As the hon. Gentleman knows, following changes to the scheme, prisoners must earn those and other privileges.
Kevin Brennan
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am quite a big fan of the late Johnny Cash, who performed in prisons, and Billy Bragg, who started the Jail Guitar Doors initiative to provide guitars to those in prison using musical instruments as a means of rehabilitation. Why have the Government banned the use of most of those instruments by ordering prisoners to return steel-string and electric guitars?
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman, perhaps predictably, given his level of expertise, has reached a level of detail on musical instruments of which I am not currently cognisant, but I will look into the matter he raises. He is right that music can be a method of rehabilitation. We want prisoners to play instruments, either on their own or in groups, in appropriate circumstances, but he will understand that there have to be some restrictions. I will have a look and ensure that the restrictions are appropriate.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
19. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of current sentencing guidelines in manslaughter cases where a single punch to the head results in death; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. There is no current Sentencing Council guideline for manslaughter. However, the Court of Appeal issued a guideline judgment in 2009 on sentencing for that offence in which it made it clear that attention should be paid to the problem of gratuitous, unprovoked violence in our city centres and streets.
Mr Ellwood
In November last year Andrew Young, a constituent of mine, challenged a cyclist for riding on the pavement. For his troubles he was viciously punched in the head and tragically died the next day. His attacker was convicted of manslaughter a fortnight ago and received a sentence of just four years, so he is likely to be out in just two years. I am grateful for the Attorney-General calling the case in, but I hope that the Minister will agree that there is no excuse for such violent behaviour and that the sentence seems unduly lenient.
Jeremy Wright
I certainly agree that there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and this is clearly a very tragic case. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the Attorney-General’s consideration of the matter. My right hon. and learned Friend will reach his own conclusions in due course. As I have said, I think it is right that we have high penalties available in appropriate cases. Of course, as my hon. Friend will recognise, it is for individual sentencers to decide how to use them.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend understand that, as there has been more than one instance of a low sentence in the event of taking a life under such circumstances, as illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), there will be a growing demand for mandatory sentences unless the courts respond accordingly?
Jeremy Wright
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern; he has an enviable track record in campaigning on these matters. It is important, however, that we all recognise that it is difficult to make an appropriate judgment on the adequacy of a sentence unless we have heard all the evidence and mitigation in the case; few of us have that advantage. The existence of the right of the Attorney-General to refer matters to the Court of Appeal where he believes there to be unduly lenient sentences is the right mechanism. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering the matter at the moment.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
23. What plans he has to bring forward legislative proposals to expand the scope of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
There has been good progress in extending the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act because the coalition Government pledged to extend its scope to provide greater transparency. We extended it in 2010 to academies, in 2011 to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, and last year to 100 companies wholly owned by more than one public authority. The next item on the agenda is to do with Network Rail, and we are awaiting a view from the Department for Transport as to whether it thinks it would be appropriate for that to be implemented this year.
Lindsay Roy
What benefits have accrued to the Government and citizens from the implementation of the Act, and when does the Minister plan to extend its scope further?
Simon Hughes
We intend to extend it further as soon as is practical. One specific issue that I hope will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman—as it is to colleagues of his, including those who have come to see me about it—is that we intend to publish a revised code of practice to make sure that private companies that carry out public functions have freedom of information requirements in their contracts and go further than that. We hope that that will be in place by the end of this year.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
There is one area where the Minister should perhaps look at narrowing the scope of the Act, because my understanding is that requests can be made by anybody anywhere on the face of the earth; they do not have to be British citizens. It is not the role of the British Government to be a taxpayer-funded research service for anyone on the globe. May I suggest that he narrow the scope to those for whom the Government work—citizens of our country?
Simon Hughes
I well understand my hon. Friend’s point. There will be two consultations this year: first, on precisely such issues about the scope of the current legislation to make sure that it is not abused while we retain freedom of information as a principle of Government; and secondly, on extending it to other areas where we have not gone so far.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I would like briefly to inform the House of some important changes I am making to the use of release on temporary licence for prisoners, in order to tighten the current system and better protect the public. In future, all prisoners released on temporary licence will be tagged. Temporary licences will be granted only where a prisoner has demonstrated a commitment to change and there is a clear benefit in reducing reoffending. There will be a more thorough risk assessment before temporary licences are authorised and a more robust response for prisoners who fail to comply. For serious or violent offenders, I am introducing a new scheme of restricted temporary licences that will involve more stringent risk assessments and a more robust monitoring regime. These measures will ensure that we make more effective use of release on temporary licence and that we take the steps necessary to maintain public safety.
Guy Opperman
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Does he agree that the best way to bridge the gap between prison and normal life is through help by organisations such as the Oswin project, based in Northumberland, which provides paid apprenticeships and paid employment such that the individuals concerned, who are all ex-offenders, are better able to integrate and manage their way back into normal life?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I am looking forward to visiting Northumberland shortly and seeing some of the work that is being done. This is enormously important. It is particularly important that we have really close links between the efforts provided to help people into employment and the efforts put into helping them to sort their lives out once they have left prison. Those two areas are integrally linked, and that work is immensely important.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Does the Justice Secretary think there is a problem with young men in particular being radicalised in our prisons? If so, what is he doing about it?
Chris Grayling
There is certainly a real issue. We have seen over the years the radicalisation of young men in prisons. We now have a first-rate team of imams in our prisons who are carefully selected and I have met a number of them. They are putting together carefully constructed programmes to help steer people away from radicalisation. I pay tribute to the work they do in often difficult circumstances and I believe they can really make a difference.
Sadiq Khan
The sorts of things that the Prime Minister’s extremism taskforce, experts, governors and staff are saying are required are enhanced monitoring, better intelligence gathering, staff trained to recognise and deal with the issue, a dedicated expert unit within the Prison Service, a specialist programme to target prisoners and spare capacity for governors. What resources and how much personal attention is the Justice Secretary giving to that?
Chris Grayling
Let me assure the right hon. Gentleman that all of those things are, in fact, currently happening. The last meeting I had to discuss those issues took place in the past two weeks. It is a matter of great concern to my colleagues on the Front Bench and to me, and we will continue to work at it. I again pay the greatest of tributes to the staff involved in this work on the front line and the imams who are doing such good work in shaping the education programmes that can make a real difference. I think that there is agreement across the House that we need to ensure that the work is effective and delivers real results for us. I am very confident in the team who are doing it.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
T3. Could the Secretary of State update the House on what recent discussions he has had in Brussels regarding any moves intended to create an EU-wide justice system?
Chris Grayling
I have continual conversations about that and continue to resist any attempts to do it. One of the areas I have been most concerned about is the creation of the justice scorecard, the latest version of which was published yesterday. I believe it is a vehicle that theoretically allows the Commission to extend its legislative remit. I am pleased to tell the House that the United Kingdom is the only country that is wholly not co-operating with the justice scorecard.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. Legal aid used for injunctions and stays pending judicial review has been vital in preventing ordinary families from spiralling into homelessness and, indeed, in saving the public purse the costs of incorrectly made homelessness decisions by local authorities. Will Ministers confirm whether the changes made to legal aid in regulations last week have retained that specific protection?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
The provisions are there and there are exceptions. The hon. Lady will be aware that the argument constantly put forward that legal aid is being taken away from everyone simply does not match up. For those who are in need and when people’s individual liberty is at stake, legal aid is provided, as is the case with other provisions.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
T4. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to give victims of crime a greater voice so that the impact of crimes can be seen and heard?
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)
As I detailed earlier, we have taken a large number of measures. Perhaps the most significant one will be literally to give them a voice in court: victims of crime will be able to make a statement in court after the verdict but before the sentence. Many victims have emphasised that that will empower them: they will be able to look the offender in the face and say what effect the offence has had on their family. That is a very significant change in the court process in favour of victims.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
T6. It is estimated that this year there will be 42,000 applications to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, which means that 15,000 people who would have been eligible under the old scheme will not get anything. Is the Secretary of State proud that he has taken away access to justice for so many victims of crime?
Chris Grayling
What we have tried to do in what are tough times financially is centre the resource we have on those who have been most badly affected by crimes. The reforms put together by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) were designed to ensure that those who had relatively minor injuries as a result of crime would not be where we focused our resource and would be excluded from the scheme. We have left in place discretionary funding so that in unexpected circumstances, where there is an unexpected impact, support can still be provided.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T5. I warmly welcome the use of mental health diversion pilot schemes in police stations pre-arrest, but more work needs to be done to ensure that the number of people with mental health conditions in our prison system is as small as possible. Which steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to deal with that vital issue?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. For me, this issue is the next priority for my Department beyond the current reforms. I believe that we need to make better provision for people with mental health problems in our prisons. It is the next big piece of work that needs to be done, and I hope and expect that we will have the opportunity to put in place real change in the future that can make a difference for those people.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
T7. Next Wednesday, I will host an event in Parliament on behalf of the Sophie Lancaster Foundation. Sophie and her boyfriend were Goths who were set upon by a gang and brutally kicked and beaten, and Sophie died of her injuries. What guidance is the Minister giving courts about treating such crimes and sentencing them as hate crimes?
Chris Grayling
May I first say that we in this House all abhor such horrendous incidents, and our hearts always go out to the families of the victims. The hon. Lady will of course understand that sentencing guidelines are created by the Sentencing Council, and that we as politicians do not have the power, unless we choose to legislate, to instruct courts how to act in particular circumstances. The message I would always give to courts is that it is the will of the democratically elected Parliament that horrendous and brutal crimes should be dealt with firmly and appropriately.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The recent orchestrated action by self-employed barristers in protection of their commercial interest is prima facie evidence of an anti-competitive cartel. Such a cartel would be illegal under EU and UK competition law. What can we do to uphold the law in this area?
Mr Vara
The action taken by barristers recently is very regrettable. It caused a lot of inconvenience to victims and witnesses. I just want to assure the legal profession that the door of the Secretary of State for Justice and my door are wide open, and we hope that we can engage in constructive dialogue.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T8. Last autumn, Ministers said that no prisoners were being held in police cells, but figures show that there were 608 occasions on which prisoners were held in police cells between October and January. Will the Minister apologise?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
No, because the hon. Gentleman is not correctly representing what we said. We said that Operation Safeguard was not in action, and that was true. He should understand that the use of police cells is routine—it was done under the previous Government—and occurs for a variety of reasons, some of which, for example, are down to courts finishing late and not being able to be get prisoners back to their home prison in time. Those things have happened under the previous Government and under this one. He might be interested to know that the use of prison cells last year was a little under 1,000; under his Government, it reached a peak of 50,000.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given the level of support across this House for the decriminalisation of non-payment of the TV licence fee, does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued criminalisation of people whose only crime is being poor is completely untenable? What discussions has he had with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on this issue?
Chris Grayling
I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. We are giving this issue careful consideration. I have had discussions both with my counterpart at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and with the Cabinet Office. The three Departments will continue to have discussions both with him and other Back Benchers with an interest in this issue, and with the BBC.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
T9. Last week, G4S repaid more than £100 million, after malpractice on its tagging contract. Should we be concerned that G4S has just bought itself a clean bill of health for future contracts?
Chris Grayling
We have said to both G4S and Serco—I deplore the actions of those companies in the things that have taken place—that simply repaying money is not sufficient, and that we expect them to go through a process of corporate renewal, which will involve comprehensive changes to both personnel and ways of working internally. I am not in the process of destroying British companies; I am in the business of saying, “You cannot expect to work with Government unless you uphold high standards, take a transparent approach and absolutely do not try to rip off the taxpayer.”
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
If someone is breathalysed and found to be over the limit, their driving licence can be suspended straight away. However, if someone is found to be over the limit and kills somebody, it can take months. That was the experience of the family of Jamie Still, whose killer drove for eight months after killing him in 2010. Prosecutors do not ask for the suspension of a driving licence in a case of death by criminal driving. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the Crown Prosecution Service about that?
Chris Grayling
I am happy to take that matter forward. I was not aware of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We will take a careful look at it and discuss it with him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State content with a system of justice in which people who have no criminal record can be dawn-raided, arrested and left in limbo for months and months, with their careers ruined? Is that the right sort of criminal justice system for our country?
Chris Grayling
It is impossible to answer that question without knowing the circumstances of the case and without understanding the reasons for what I assume are police actions. I want a justice system that acts appropriately, takes tough action where necessary and treats people fairly, including by giving them a fair trial. When people are found guilty, I want the system to treat them appropriately and punish them accordingly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many foreign national offenders are there in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to return them to secure detention in their own countries?
Jeremy Wright
I took the trouble to look up that figure on the off-chance that my hon. Friend might ask for it. It is 10,689 as of last Friday, which, I am pleased to tell him, is a reduction from the last time that he asked for the figure and I told him it. It is important that he, I and other Members of the House support the Immigration Bill when it returns to this House, so that we can begin to deal with some of the obstacles to doing what he has described, which include the number of appeals that are available to some people to delay their return to the country to which they should go.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Humberside police have the highest number of reported child rapes. Last year, the figure was 176, alongside the 193 reported adult rapes. The cut to the money that is available to the Hull rape crisis centre will mean that the centre is no longer viable and that victims will have to travel 60-odd miles to Leeds to get the assistance that they need. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State look at that case to see whether the Ministry of Justice can support this very vulnerable group of people through the continuation of funding?
Damian Green
I will, of course, look at that individual case. However, I hope that the hon. Lady and the House will acknowledge that the Government are committed to funding 15 new rape crisis centres; that the 14th and 15th new centres will come on stream this year; and that we have provided an extra £4 million to allow that to happen. Inevitably, there are bids that cannot be met for perfectly valid reasons, but I will take a look at that case.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend look again at the adequacy of the terms of reference and working practices of the Office for Judicial Complaints to deal properly with redress in the very rare cases in which our judiciary do not come up to the proper standards of behaviour?
Chris Grayling
I am happy to do so. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me a bit more information on the detail of his concerns. I think that the office does a good job. My experience from my 18 months as Lord Chancellor is that it makes sensible decisions and takes a sensible approach when such issues arise. One hopes that they will not arise often, but I will look at his concerns.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State to correct the record? In the House, he said that family mediations had not fallen, but a letter from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) says that publicly funded referrals and family mediations have fallen.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
The position is clear and I tried to clarify it in my letter to the hon. Lady. Sadly, there has been a drop in the number of cases that are going to mediation. There has therefore been a drop in the number of cases that are going through the process. The percentage of successful mediations has not dropped. That is the issue to which the Secretary of State was referring. The Government are committed to doing what she would want, which is to ensure that from next month, when the law changes, there is an increase in referrals to mediation and an increase in successful mediations.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Her Majesty’s prison Northumberland was privatised on 1 December 2013. In the four months since, there have been 180 redundancies. Nearly a third of the work force have been released. Is the Secretary of State confident that HMP Northumberland is a safe place for prisoners and staff?
Chris Grayling
We are having to take difficult decisions about staffing levels across the prison estate. I am confident that every one of our prisons is a safe place to detain prisoners. I have not pursued a privatisation strategy across the prison system but accepted the recommendations of the Prison Governors Association and others, and the benchmarking programme that we are putting in place across the prison system was recommended in-house by the public sector team.
Petition
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is with great pleasure that I present this petition signed by over 3,000 of my constituents. In 2009 Post Office Ltd made it clear that it had no intention to relocate or outsource its services from the two Crown post offices on Anglesey as no other suitable major retail brand existed on the high streets. In the closure programme of sub-post offices, the importance of the Crown offices was highlighted due to their location and integration with other services. This situation has not changed.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of Anglesey,
Declares that they wish to preserve the Crown Post Office in both Holyhead and Llangefni to retain the safety, convenience and services of this vital resource to the island’s community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons protect both Crown Post Offices from closure and from potential franchising.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001333]
Points of Order
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need your urgent advice on an important constituency case. As the local MP, I have been representing a family in a contested adoption case, including the birth mother, Miss P. In order to represent the family properly, I needed to see the final statements and assessments by relevant social workers. Norfolk county council then e-mailed my constituent, stating:
“I would be grateful if you could confirm whether or not your client has disclosed a copy of the assessments to Henry Bellingham. This would clearly be in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of Court.”
I then wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), and the president of the family division, Sir James Munby. Both the Minister and Sir James replied that since the case of Re N in 2009, the family procedure rules had been updated specifically to include MPs as interested parties who can receive all relevant statements and assessments. In other words, the county council was completely wrong.
Norfolk county council was either ignorant of that change in the law, which I find pretty staggering given that every family practitioner in the land will surely have known about the consequences of Re N, or it deliberately misled a vulnerable young mother about the law and conspired to stop MPs going about their duty. I take the matter very seriously, because I have been prevented from getting full and considered advice to Miss P. What protection can you give MPs, Mr Speaker? Is there a possible contempt of Parliament, and could Norfolk county council be referred to the Committee of Privileges?
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman springs to his feet with great alacrity, and we will hear from him in a moment.
I say to the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) that if he has a complaint on grounds of privilege, it will be necessary for him to write to me on that score. More widely, I thank him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice yesterday evening of his intention to raise the point of order. I am concerned as to his ability to act effectively in this matter, and I am sympathetic with the broad thrust of what he has said to me and the House. My clear understanding is that the relevant Minister is interested in coming in on the matter, and he should have the opportunity to do so. We will then hear from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth).
Mr Speaker
No, the hon. Gentleman thinks that his concern is so immediate that it must be taken now. I am happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, so we will hear from the Minister in a moment.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.
Further to that point of order, may I put it on record that I have suffered precisely the same threat from Surrey county council about a potential adoption case in my constituency? May I suggest that it is a matter of relevance to you, Mr Speaker, because it strikes at the heart of the issue of privilege? It is extremely important that the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) has just given you about the ruling by the president of the family division is widely disseminated to county councils throughout the country.
Mr Speaker
Look, I make one light-hearted point to the hon. Gentleman and one more serious one. The light-hearted one is that I cannot imagine that any attempt to threaten him could be successful. I have known him for 25 years, and he is not the sort of person to be threatened effectively, let me put it that way.
On the more substantial and substantive front, I am afraid that I must repeat to the hon. Gentleman that a complaint on grounds of privilege has to be put to me in writing. He knows very well that I am extremely concerned about the protection of parliamentary privilege and the need to guard against any threat to it, as manifested in the recent case involving the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). I believe that the hon. Gentleman is well familiar with the exchanges relating to that case. I am sensitive to his concerns, but let us now hear—preferably with brevity—from the Minister. [Laughter]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
I have not said a word.
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. the Ministry of Justice is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) for raising the matter with us. It is of great constitutional importance and significance, and people in local authorities need to know what the law is. It is clear to me that the solicitor acting for Norfolk county council was wrong in what she said, which was that it would be clearly in breach of the family procedure rules and a contempt of court for the documents to be disclosed to the Member of Parliament of the person in question. The president of the family division has drawn the local authority’s attention to the case of Re N, where the judgment is clear. Since then, the family procedure rules have been changed and make it clear that unless a judge has ruled otherwise, parties involved in family cases can disclose information relating to their case to any person, including their constituency MP, as long as it is for the purpose of confidential discussion. The rules are above doubt and clear, and I hope that all local authorities will respect the role of Members of Parliament in representing their constituents.
Mr Speaker
I was aware of the change of rules, and now the House is. We are grateful for that and will leave it there for today. I hope that is helpful.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 6 January this year I asked a named-day question about the introduction of fees for employment tribunals, and particularly the issue of pregnant women who are now being asked to pay £1,200 to go to tribunal. There is concern that there has been chaos in the system about the fee remittance available to that group. My named-day question was answered only on 17 January after I had submitted pursuant questions. The Minister said that he would write to me in full, but I have not heard anything and it is now two months later. Can you do anything, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Ministers respond to legitimate questions from Members of Parliament?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has made her point. The Procedure Committee is conscious of its importance, as indeed is the Leader of the House, who is nodding sagely from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), made a written statement to the House regarding the impending closure of the Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland, which will result in more than 300 jobs being lost, including 200 in my constituency. The matter has concentrated the minds of many people, including a petition of more than 40,000 people. A debate in the Assembly indicated unanimous support there, as well as the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister here. What further procedures are available to try to salvage jobs and services in Northern Ireland before that unacceptable decision is implemented?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has already given the issue a somewhat higher profile by the very fact of raising it with such force on the Floor of the House. My simple advice is that he should repair to the Table Office from this Chamber, and seek advice as to the means he can deploy to take forward his concern and seek resolution. I hope that is helpful.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the ten-minute rule motion, for which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) has been so stoically and patiently waiting.
Brown Hare (Protection)
Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a close season for the hunting of the brown hare; and for connected purposes.
I shall try not to speak for the full allotted time as we have grave and serious matters to debate following this motion.
Hares are an iconic and much-valued part of our country’s wildlife, and I doubt there are many people who, having watched them in the wild, are not fascinated by their behaviour and beauty. I present this Bill in March, and we have all heard of mad March hares, which is traditionally when their behaviour is at its most celebrated. For a long time it was thought that the boxing that occurs was competition between males, but closer observation has revealed that it is usually a female hitting a male, either to show that she is not yet ready to mate, or as a test of his determination.
Over the past 100 years or so, numbers of hares have declined. In some parts of their range they are scarce, but in others they are still relatively abundant. The law currently allows them to be killed as game or to prevent serious damage to farm crops, but unlike other game animals they have no close season in which to raise their young. Some existing legislation cover hares, but I—along with many others—think that a close season is the least that these amazing creatures deserve.
As is so often the case, however, when a matter is looked into in more depth, the simple answer is not the full picture and there are many more complex issues to consider. I am grateful to many people who have helped me while I have researched this subject, particularly Lorraine Platt of Blue Hare, Humane Society International, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and the Countryside Alliance. My proposals will probably not please any of them, but I believe they are a sensible middle-ground approach that will allow us to take the matter forward in legislation.
The welfare issue of how hares are killed is, I believe, covered by existing legislation. If those laws are broken, the perpetrators should face the consequences. In fact, the biggest human threat to hares almost certainly comes from illegal coursing and poaching. Gangs of unscrupulous people invade farmland, chasing and killing hares with dogs while trespassing over property, usually in a very aggressive manner. I have been told that this is a real problem for many farmers. Many have lost their hare population through this practice, or have been tempted to eradicate hares from their land to escape the attention of these criminals. I propose that penalties be strengthened and that proper resources be given to police forces to enable real action to be taken against these people.
I have spoken to many interested parties and what strikes me most is that hares are almost universally thought of in kind terms, not just by wildlife enthusiasts like myself but by countrymen and women generally. The reasons for their declining numbers are not shooting, but changing farming practices that leave little areas of cover, and predation, principally by foxes. A fully grown hare can outrun a fox but leverets are particularly vulnerable, so a population can quickly have an imbalance, with fewer young hares coming through. I have seen impressive statistics from the work of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust at its Allerton farm project that show how hare numbers increase dramatically when fox numbers are controlled.
It must be recognised that hares can and do damage crops. When I first considered introducing a close season, I was made aware of the danger that farmers who are concerned about that damage would, as a matter of expediency and as a precaution, kill as many hares as possible before the close season to minimise legally the numbers that would cause damage later. That is obviously not the result that I and others are looking for, so I have to concede that provision should be made to allow some shooting, if necessary, during the close season. I envisage something along the lines of section 7 of the Deer Act 1991, which provides a “farmer’s defence” whereby authorised persons may, in certain circumstances, shoot deer if they are causing damage in the close season. I am loth to bring in more bureaucracy, so how that could be enacted would have to be considered in more detail, but I believe this exemption would satisfy the needs of farmers who have genuine concerns about a close season.
The breeding season of the hare is a long one, and dependent somewhat on geography. The current code of practice has been agreed to by a coalition of country interests, including the Countryside Alliance, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, among others. The work of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust on this subject has been extremely thorough. Its code of practice states:
“From 1 March to 31 July hares should only be killed if they are…causing serious crop damage (as opposed to them being a potential source of risk). Not shooting at this time prevents the orphaning of dependent young during the hare’s main breeding season.”
This period should be extended to start on 1 February and end on 31 August, and it should be enshrined in law. That is why I propose the Bill and why I hope it will be given leave to advance today. I do not believe that I am being sentimental about this magnificent creature, but I am taking a pragmatic attitude to help one aspect of its conservation for future generations to enjoy.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir John Randall, Mark Pritchard, Caroline Nokes, Mr Adrian Sanders, John McDonnell, Angela Smith, Caroline Dinenage and Michael Fabricant present the Bill.
Sir John Randall accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 184).
Ukraine
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
We now come to the main business: a general debate on Ukraine, for which there are three hours, protected. Before I call the Foreign Secretary to move the motion, it may be convenient for the House to know that 26 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to contribute from the Back Benches. Obviously there is no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I feel sure that the Foreign Secretary and his shadow will wish sensitively to tailor their contributions in the light of the level of interest among their colleagues.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Ukraine.
The crisis in Ukraine is the most serious test of European security in the 21st century so far. The United Kingdom’s interests are twofold. First, we want to see a stable, prosperous and unified Ukraine that is able to determine its own future, free from external pressure or interference. Secondly, we have a vital interest in the upholding of international law and the United Nations charter, the honouring of treaties, and the maintenance of a rules-based international system. Russia’s actions in Crimea run roughshod over all those fundamental principles, and threaten the future of Ukraine.
I pay tribute to the extraordinary restraint shown by the Ukrainian Government, Ukraine’s military forces and its people in the face of immense provocation, with part of their country invaded and tens of thousands of forces massed on their border by a neighbour that refuses to rule out further military intervention against them. There is a grave danger of a provocation elsewhere in Ukraine that will become a pretext for further military escalation. We are working urgently to agree the mandate of an expanded OSCE monitoring mission to all parts of the country in the coming days.
On Friday, I met United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov before their bilateral talks here in London. Russia was presented with a series of proposals to de-escalate the crisis and to address the situation in Crimea. After six hours of talks, Russia rebuffed those efforts, and on Sunday the referendum went ahead. The Crimean authorities claimed a turnout of 83% of the population, with 96.8% voting in favour of joining Russia. Yesterday the Parliament of Crimea formally applied to join the Russian Federation, and President Putin signed a decree recognising Crimea as a “sovereign state’” He has now announced, in the last two hours, new laws to incorporate Crimea in the Russian Federation.
It was regrettable to hear President Putin today choosing the route of isolation, denying the citizens of his own country and of Crimea partnership with the international community and full membership of a range of international organisations, and denying Russia its right to help to shape the 21st century in a positive manner. No amount of sham and perverse democratic process or skewed historical references can make up for the fact that this is an incursion into a sovereign state and a land grab of part of its territory, with no respect for the law of that country or for international law.
The referendum was clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution, which states that the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral constituent part of Ukraine, that it can resolve issues related to its authority only within the provisions of the constitution, and that only the Ukrainian Parliament has the right to call such referendums.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that any referendum that is held at the barrel of a gun and on an electoral roll that is manifestly not fit for purpose cannot be taken seriously?
Mr Hague
Yes. This was a vote in circumstances in which Crimea was occupied by more than 20,000 Russian troops, and indeed the meeting of the Crimean Parliament that announced the referendum was itself controlled by unidentified armed gunmen and took place behind locked doors.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there are legitimate and acceptable ways in which to pursue constitutional change—[Interruption]—and that, in such a way, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, and Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski have highlighted the forthcoming independence referendum in Scotland as an agreed process? [Interruption.] Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any referendum must fulfil the highest democratic standards, as in Scotland, and must not be held in dubious circumstances and at the barrel of a gun, as in Crimea?
Mr Hague
The referendum in Scotland was, of course, agreed in this Parliament, and will take place in a legal and fully democratic manner. The referendum in Crimea took place at 10 days’ notice, without the leaders of Ukraine being able to visit Crimea and without meeting any of the OSCE’s standards for democratic decisions or elections, which include verification of the existence of an accurate voter registration list and, in this instance, confidence that only people holding Ukrainian passports would be allowed to vote. None of those conditions was fulfilled. So of course this referendum is at the opposite end of any scale from the referendum that will take place in Scotland.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that if Russia wants to be isolated, we should allow it to be isolated? Russia needs the west a great deal more than we need Russia. We should not be afraid of being robust in our actions against the nationalist actions of President Putin.
Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
Let me make it clear to the Foreign Secretary that not all Scots look inward all the time. May I ask whether he would be prepared to suspend Russia from the G8 as a consequence of its actions?
Mr Hague
I shall come to the measures that we can take in a moment, but we have already suspended preparations for the G8. The decision must of course be made by the G7 nations, but I think that the actions that Russia has taken make it highly likely that they will wish to establish meetings of their own, including the meeting of Foreign Ministers that was due to take place next month in Moscow. I shall return to those points shortly.
The OSCE mission to Ukraine was refused entry to Crimea on 6 March, and there are reports of considerable irregularities including voting by Russian citizens, Crimean officials and militia taking mobile ballot boxes to the homes of residents to persuade them to vote, and a black-out of Ukrainian television channels. The outcome of the referendum also does not reflect the views of minorities in Crimea, as the region’s Muslim Tatar minority, who make up between 14% and 15% of the population, boycotted the referendum. Furthermore, the ballot paper asked the people of Crimea to decide either to become part of the Russian Federation or to revert to the highly ambiguous 1992 constitution. There was no option on the ballot paper for those who supported the status quo. The House should be in no doubt that this was a mockery of all democratic practice.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe stated unequivocally last week that the referendum was illegal and should not go ahead. On Saturday the UN Security Council voted on a resolution condemning the referendum as “unconstitutional” and “illegitimate”, which was co-sponsored by 42 nations. Russia was completely isolated in vetoing the text, while 13 members of the Security Council voted in favour, and China abstained. Indeed, the House should be clear about the illegality not only of the referendum, but of all Russia’s recent actions in Crimea. Russia has advanced several wholly spurious arguments to justify—or try to justify—what it has done—
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is being very generous in giving way. He has been absolutely right to be robust in his response to this Russian aggression. He mentioned that there were 20,000 Russian troops in Crimea. While no one is advocating military intervention, does this not remind us that perhaps we should be fundamentally reassessing how much we spend on our armed forces? Although we may have the fourth or fifth largest defence budget, we rank 30th when it comes to deploying those forces overseas. That is a nonsense, given the extent of our global interests.
Mr Hague
What my hon. Friend has said may take us on to wider debates, but I should point out that we are one of the few countries in NATO that spend 2% or more of GDP on defence. I think that only four NATO countries do that now. I have argued in the past—including at NATO meetings—that other nations will need to increase their percentages over the coming years.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has not yet mentioned the Council of Europe. Will this Government move to expel or suspend the Russian Federation from membership of the Council of Europe for this most blatant breach of the 1949 statute?
Mr Hague
The secretary-general of the Council of Europe and I will meet and be able to consider these things later this week when he visits London, but my hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Of course, the Conservative Members who are in the Council of Europe have already moved away from the group that they were involved in with Russian members. One of the Russians listed for sanctions yesterday at the Foreign Affairs Council is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—in the Socialist Group. I say that not as a partisan point, but I hope Opposition Members will make their views on that clear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State on his strong stance on the recent situation in Ukraine. The EU has taken the step of imposing a sanction to stop 21 Russians. Does he feel the sanctions imposed by the EU, and at this moment the UK, will be strong enough to stop any more Russian incursions into Ukraine, especially east Ukraine, where there are clearly problems?
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
In 1994 Russia and all other key countries signed the Budapest memorandum, which preserved Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. What is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the clear breach by Russia of the 1994 memorandum, and how do we avoid reaching a situation in which we all feel the creeping threat of 1938?
Mr Hague
That gives me the cue to run through, and make clear to the House, the spurious arguments Russia has advanced for its actions, including on the Budapest memorandum.
First, Russia says that it has acted in defence of Russian compatriots who were in danger from violence and facing a humanitarian crisis. However, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities has stated that there is
“no evidence of any violence or threats to the rights of Russian speakers”
in Crimea. Indeed, there is no evidence of Russian compatriots being under threat anywhere in Ukraine, or of attacks on churches in eastern Ukraine, as Russia has alleged. It is not true that thousands of refugees are fleeing Ukraine into Russia, nor is there any threat to Russian military bases in Crimea, since the Ukrainian Government have pledged to abide by all existing agreements covering those bases.
Numerous international mechanisms exist to protect the rights of minorities, and Russia’s own actions are the greatest threat to stability in Ukraine. On top of evidence of gangs of thugs being bussed across the Russian border to provoke clashes with communities in eastern Ukraine, over the weekend the Ukrainian Government reported that Russian forces have seized an oil and gas facility 5 miles outside Crimea.
Secondly, to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), Russia claims not to be bound by any of its previous agreements with Ukraine, including the 1994 Budapest memorandum, on the grounds that the new Government in Ukraine are illegitimate. However, the interim Government, formed when former President Yanukovych fled his post, were approved by an overwhelming majority in a free vote in the Ukrainian Parliament including representatives from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. The Government have restored the 2004 constitution and scheduled presidential elections. Their legitimacy and their commitment to democracy are clear.
Moreover, treaties and international agreements are between states, not between Governments, and a change in Government does not in itself affect the binding force of those agreements. The commitments in the Budapest memorandum still stand, and Russia has flagrantly breached its pledge, in the words of the memorandum, to
“refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
Thirdly, although Russia still denies that its troops are in Crimea, the Russians maintain that former President Yanukovych, whom they describe as the
“legitimate president of Ukraine”,
is entitled to request military assistance from Russia. That, too, is false, since the Ukrainian constitution is clear that only the Ukrainian Parliament has the authority to approve decisions on admitting foreign troops. The President has no such right, nor does the Crimean Parliament. In law and as a matter of logic it is clearly ludicrous to argue that a President who abandoned his post and fled has any right whatsoever to make any decisions about the future of that country, let alone to invite foreign troops into it.
Fourthly, Russia argues that the people of Crimea have a right to self-determination and that it is their basic right to choose to join Russia, citing Kosovo as an alleged precedent, but there is no equivalence whatsoever between Crimea and Kosovo and, as Chancellor Merkel has said, it is “shameful” to make the comparison. NATO intervention in Kosovo followed ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity on a large scale. An international contact group, including Russia, was brought together to discuss the future of Kosovo after the conflict. The independence of Kosovo followed nine years of work by the Kosovan authorities to satisfy the conditions of independent statehood and mediation by a UN special envoy. None of these circumstances applies to Crimea.
In all those areas, Russia is attempting to find justifications in precedent or law to excuse its actions in Ukraine and to muddy the waters of international opinion. What we are actually witnessing is the annexation of part of the sovereign territory of an independent European state through military force. The fall of President Yanukovych and the change of Government in Ukraine was a massive strategic setback for the Russian Government, who had made no secret of their desire to prevent Ukraine from moving towards closer association with the EU. Seen in that light the annexation of Crimea is a bid to regain the advantage, to restore Russian prestige and permanently to impair Ukraine’s functioning as a country, and given that Russia still maintains it has the right to intervene militarily anywhere on Ukrainian soil, there is a grave risk that we have not yet seen the worst of this crisis.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Given that the Foreign Secretary referred to the unilateral redrawing of boundaries, which we have not seen for the last 25 years, neighbouring countries will become very important. Although Turkey is a member of the OSCE, have there been other, more detailed, discussions with Turkey as to how it could help the EU and the US efforts?
Mr Hague
Yes, there have been many discussions, including regular conference calls between EU Foreign Ministers and Secretary Kerry, which have also included my Turkish colleague, Foreign Minister Davutoglu, so Turkey’s opinions are very closely aligned with the ones I have been expressing. It of course has a particular affinity with the Tatar minority in Crimea, so Turkey is extremely anxious about this situation. It must choose its own measures, however: it is not a member of the European Union and it will choose, of course, its own measures as a sovereign state.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if President Putin is willing to use the protection of Russian speakers as a pretext for going into Ukraine and he gets away with it, he might think about doing the same in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania where there are also Russian speakers?
Mr Hague
This is a source of profound anxiety to people in the Baltic states and other states of the former Soviet Union. Russia should take note that there has been very little, if any, diplomatic support for its position from central Asian states, who perhaps have some of the same anxieties.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is it not the case that Ukraine was one of the largest owners of nuclear weapons in the world and it gave up those nuclear weapons on the basis of peace and security, yet it has now been railroaded by Russia? What kind of example does this set for the world going forward?
Mr Hague
That is a very powerful point. When the Budapest memorandum was signed and the commitment was made not to use armed force against Ukraine, that was in exchange for its giving up of nuclear weapons. It sends a terrible signal to other nations that may be seeking nuclear weapons for Russia to behave in this way. This all means that if we do not stand up to such a profound breach of international agreements and the use of force to change borders in Europe in the 21st century, the credibility of the international order will be at stake and we will face more such crises in the future. Russia and others could conclude that it can intervene with impunity in other countries where there are either Russian compatriots or Orthodox populations. Indeed, it has been a Russian policy over a number of years to encourage such links and dependencies, through the issuing of millions of Russian passports in Ukraine and other countries bordering Russia. Events in Crimea form part of a pattern of Russian behaviour, including in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) mentioned three states that are members of NATO, but two other relevant states, Moldova and Belarus, are not. Although it is Russia, rather than the European Union, that has made strategic mistakes in Ukraine, does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU should make sure that it does not make any strategic mistakes with regard to Moldova and Belarus, and that it is robust in its dealings with those states?
Mr Hague
Of course we saw at the Vilnius summit the initialling of partnership agreements with both Moldova and Georgia, the two countries whose relationship with the EU is most advanced. It is very important that those agreements are signed and completed, and that our response to Ukraine sends out a message on our clear position against Russian interference in Moldova and Georgia, and indeed in other neighbouring states.
Chris Bryant
I wish to ask about the issue of impunity, because the Foreign Secretary is right to say that if Russia constantly learns that it can get away with things, it will continue to go further. For a long time this House has held the view that the people involved in the murder of Sergei Magnitsky and in the corruption that he unveiled should be banned from this country. Why will the Government not just do it?
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous debates, we already have the power, and we already use the power, to exclude from this country people guilty of human rights violations. The Home Secretary has made very clear her readiness to use that power.
Back to the main strategic issue—
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hague
I must make some progress now.
Our national interest depends on a rules-based international system where nations uphold bilateral and global agreements in a whole variety of areas, from trade to security. We have worked with Russia in recent years to uphold agreements such as the non-proliferation treaty. The credibility of the international system rests on there being costs attached to breaking binding commitments and refusing to address disputes through peaceful diplomacy. The door to diplomacy, of course, always remains open, as it has been throughout this crisis. We have in recent days continued our efforts to persuade Russia to enter into direct talks with Ukraine and to take part in an international contact or co-ordination group, but faced with these actions it will be necessary to increase the pressure and our response.
Following the invasion of Crimea, the European Union took action at the Council meeting on 6 March to suspend visa liberalisation talks and talks on a new EU-Russia co-operation agreement. The Council also agreed that unless Russia de-escalated the crisis, we would move to a second stage of sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes against named individuals. Yesterday, the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, which I attended, decided to introduce such measures, including travel restrictions and an asset freeze on 21 individuals, not just in Crimea, but in Russia. These people are responsible for actions that undermine or threaten Ukraine, and the measures have been taken in close co-ordination with the United States and allies such as Canada, Japan and Australia. Preparatory work is under way for a third tier of sanctions, including economic and trade measures. The European Council will consider further measures later this week, in the light of President Putin’s speech today and Russia’s actions in recent days. The British Government are clear that further measures need to be taken and, in the light of President Putin’s speech today, we will argue at the Council for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained in the European Union.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The most important thing the Foreign Secretary has just said is that the further measures the United Kingdom will be seeking will include economic and trade sanctions against Russia because of its annexation of Crimea. Will he confirm that that is indeed the case, and that the UK will seek financial sanctions and economic sanctions against Russia, and seek to persuade other countries to go down that route?
Mr Hague
Let me be precise about what I said. I said that the preparation is under way for a third tier of sanctions. The Prime Minister said after the last European Council that we must be ready to pursue far-reaching measures, including in the economic, trade and financial areas. I have also said today that at the Council, which takes place on Thursday and Friday this week, the Prime Minister will argue for the strongest position and range of measures on which agreement can be obtained. That is the position I have set out.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Is it not the case that many senior Russians want to come not to Brussels or to Frankfurt, but to London? Should Britain not consider imposing financial freezing orders or travel restrictions unilaterally, if necessary?
Mr Hague
I would in no way rule that out. The measures we agreed yesterday apply in Britain as well as the rest of the European Union, and of course we retain the ability to do what my hon. Friend has said.
As the House knows, we have decided with our G7 partners to suspend preparations for the G8 summit in Sochi this summer.
Mr Hague
This is part of my answer to colleagues. We are also determined to ensure that we are taking all appropriate national measures. The Prime Minister announced last week that we would review all UK bilateral military co-operation not subject to treaty obligations with Russia, and I can announce now that we have suspended all such co-operation. Included in that are: the finalising of the military technical co-operation agreement; the cancellation of this year’s French, Russian, UK and US naval exercise; and the suspension of a proposed Royal Navy ship visit to St Petersburg and of all senior military visits unless in direct support of UK objectives.
We believe that in the current circumstances there is a compelling case for EU member states to act on defence export licences. The UK will now, with immediate effect, suspend all extant licences and application processing for licences for direct export to Russia for military and dual-use items destined for units of the Russian armed forces or other state agencies which could be or are being deployed against Ukraine. We will also suspend licences for exports to third countries for incorporation into equipment for export to Russia where there is a clear risk that the end product will be used against Ukraine. All such licences were reviewed following the Prime Minister’s statement on 10 March, and so we are able to act immediately. We encourage other European nations to take similar action.
As well as responding to Russia’s aggression in Crimea, it is also vital that the international community increases its financial and technical support to Ukraine through the International Monetary Fund and the European Union, to ensure that an economic crisis does not contribute to further political instability.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning the Speaker of the Transnistrian Parliament has written to the Speaker of the Duma asking for Transnistria to become part of the Russian Federation? Are we not on the edge of a serious situation? Can my right hon. Friend do more to unite the EU in speaking with one voice on sanctions?
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s measures and congratulate him on a pretty robust stance by the British Government, even if other Governments are less robust. However, does he in all honesty believe that the measures agreed with our European partners are going to make the blindest bit of difference to Mr Putin, who is on a roll? What would happen if he did enter eastern Ukraine this week?
Mr Hague
I believe that there are further measures that can be taken that will make a difference and, indeed, that a different relationship may be needed with Russia in the future, which I will mention at the conclusion of my remarks. In the interests of the House, I feel I should move to that conclusion.
We are absolutely clear with the Ukrainian authorities that the support we give them must be matched by economic and political reforms. I gave them this clear message when I was in Kiev two weeks ago and again yesterday when I met the acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine. Given that they have got many difficult decisions to take, it is vital that they build up support in Ukraine and in the international community, and part of the way to do that is to tackle corruption at the very outset. We will insist on such reforms and use the technical assistance I announced to the House in my last statement to help to bring them about. We are sending technical teams to Kiev to support reforms to the energy and social security sectors, and to work with the authorities on their business environment and public financial management. We are working up UK support for a flexible and rapid funding mechanism to support economic reform, and we are carrying out further work on asset recovery. We are working with Germany to support financial management, and we are working to support parliamentary and local elections.
At the emergency European Council, in response to a request by the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Heads of State and Government agreed to sign the political parts of the EU-Ukraine association agreement, which is an important symbol of the EU’s support for Ukraine. In taking those steps Ukraine should not be, and is not being, asked to choose between Russia and the EU. It should be possible for Ukraine to enjoy strong relations with both, and it is in Russia’s economic interest that it does that. I found on my visit to Ukraine that even Ukrainians in the south and east of the country do not welcome Russian intervention. Even those with many links to Russia, or those from the Party of Regions, believe in the independence and territorial integrity of their country.
By treating the situation in Ukraine as a zero-sum strategic context, Russia itself will lose strategically. Russia miscalculated its ability to control and influence the political situation in Ukraine during the events that led up to President Yanukovych’s departure. I would argue that by seizing Crimea, Russia has miscalculated again, because it has alienated a huge majority of public opinion in Ukraine, done immense damage to Russia’s reputation all over the world and increased the likelihood of European countries taking long-term action to reduce the balance of leverage in their relationship with Russia.
This is part of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). We should be ready to contemplate a new state of relations between Russia and the west in the coming years, which is different from that of the past 20 years.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Hague
I will not give way again, because I want other hon. Members to be able to speak.
That relationship would be one in which institutions such as the G8 work without Russia; military co-operation and defence exports are permanently curtailed; decisions are accelerated to reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports; foreign policy plays a bigger role in energy policy; Russia has less influence in Europe; and European nations do more to guard against a repetition of the flagrant violation of international norms that we have seen in Crimea in recent weeks. That is not the relationship that we want or have sought to have with Russia, but it is the relationship that Russia’s actions look like they will force us to adopt.
Over the past four years, we have worked to improve relations with Russia. We have worked closely with it on Iran and on many areas of UN Security Council business, but there is no doubt that if no progress is made on Ukraine, relations between Russia and many nations in the world, including ours, will be permanently affected in this way. Russia should be clear about the long-term consequences. In the United Kingdom, we will not shy away from those consequences. On that, in this House and with our allies, we will be clear. We will be clear about our own national interest, which is in Ukraine being able to make its own decisions, in the upholding of international law and the UN charter, and in the prevention of future violations of independent European states.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the motion and this debate on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and the British Government’s response. At the outset, let me make it clear that the Government have our support in seeking an urgent de-escalation of the crisis and in their efforts to date to secure a sustainable diplomatic resolution that respects and upholds the international law of which the Foreign Secretary has just spoken.
The crisis in Crimea represents perhaps the most significant security threat on the European continent in decades, and it poses a real threat to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia’s recent actions have also reaffirmed the existence of a geopolitical fault line that the west ignores at its peril. Given the events still unfolding on the ground and the speech made by President Putin in the past couple of hours, few would claim that the international community’s response to date has been effective in securing a change of approach from Russia. Since the issue was last debated in the House, an illegal referendum has taken place in Crimea in the shadow of Russian guns, President Putin has signed an order recognising Crimean independence and approved a draft Bill on its accession, and Ukraine’s Parliament in Kiev only yesterday authorised a partial mobilisation of volunteers for the armed forces’ new reserve. The potential for further escalation of the crisis, therefore, remains real and deeply troubling. The international community must do more to encourage Russia to engage in constructive dialogue, while simultaneously applying greater pressure if President Putin refuses to change course.
I want to focus on three key issues. First, I will assess the international community’s response to date and why it is has so far not achieved the desired outcome. Secondly, I will outline the possible mechanisms by which the west can now engage Russia more effectively. Finally, I will look at a series of proposed steps that should be considered for raising the costs and consequences for Russia if the crisis is not swiftly resolved.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
What, in the right hon. Gentleman’s view, does Russia need to do to bring about a de-escalation of the situation?
Mr Alexander
First and foremost, we must avoid a situation in which escalation continues as a result of the arrival of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine. Secondly, there must be a meaningful dialogue between the Ukrainian authorities and the Russian authorities, and I will explain what I mean by that in the course of my remarks. Thirdly, there must be a recognition that the international community remains unyielding in its opposition to the illegal referendum that took place in Crimea last weekend. Alas, the Kremlin has not yet recognised or acted on any of those steps, but I hope that it will do so in the coming days. Why do I make that point? Ukraine’s future still hangs in the balance, so today’s debate is welcome and takes place at a crucial time.
The recent trajectory of Ukrainian politics hinges on the events of 21 November when Yanukovych’s Cabinet abandoned an agreement on closer trade ties with the EU, and instead sought closer co-operation with the Russian Federation. Days later, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians descended on Maidan square, and for months the various protests endured and grew on the streets of Kiev. On 20 February, in a vibrant European capital, Government snipers turned their fire on protesters and the day ended with makeshift morgues lining the pavements of that historic city. On 27 February, just four days after the end of the Sochi winter Olympics, Russian troops effectively occupied Crimea under the false pretence of protecting its Russian-speaking population.
Ukraine faces a generational choice: in the decades ahead, can it face both east and west? Russia, too, is faced with two alternative futures: greater integration or greater isolation within the existing international order. It is right that the international community’s approach to date has been characterised by engagement with Russia where possible but by appropriate diplomatic pressures where required, which is why I welcome the draft UN resolution criticising the referendum in Ukraine’s Crimea region. Recent events in Ukraine are a key test of resolve for the European Union in particular. This clear and flagrant breach of international law has happened on Europe’s doorstep, and the burden of responding to the crisis rests heavily on European Union leaders.
It is worth acknowledging from the outset that getting agreement among the EU 28 is always difficult, particularly when a number of member states are vulnerable to Russian action on issues such as energy supply. I therefore welcome the steps that have already been agreed by the EU, including the suspension of negotiations with Russia on visa liberalisation and targeted asset freezes and visa bans against those responsible for threatening Ukraine’s territorial integrity and independence.
Despite those important steps, I regret that, to date, the EU’s unity in condemning Russia’s military aggression has not been matched by a shared resolve to act more decisively in extracting costs and consequences for Russia’s actions. Only four days before this week’s Foreign Affairs Council, Chancellor Merkel made it clear that if Russia continued on its current course, it would cause
“massive damage to Russia, both economically and politically.”
Following her comments, and ahead of the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, the press quoted reports that more than 100 names were being considered for targeted measures by the EU. At that Foreign Affairs Council meeting, a list of 21 individuals was agreed, and only 13 of them were Russian. Given that the objective of the sanctions is to alter the calculus of risk in the minds of the Russian leadership, it would be unfortunate if confused messages were sent to Moscow, however inadvertently, at this critical time.
Ms Gisela Stuart
My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the EU speaking with one voice. Does he not think that it was slightly naive of the French, German and Polish Foreign Ministers to take action without bringing the United States into the meeting? That would have shown unity not only within the EU but with our allies in north America.
Mr Alexander
I have no criticism of the French, German and Polish Foreign Ministers. We saw from the dynamic on the streets of Kiev that that potential agreement was overtaken by events, including the fleeing of the President from Ukraine. I do not believe that any reasonable criticism can be levelled at the European Union for somehow ignoring or being unwilling to work with our friends, colleagues and allies in the United States. Indeed, one of the brighter shafts of light amid the darkness has been the degree of effective co-operation between European leaders and the US Secretary of State John Kerry in the recent days and weeks. This is a big geopolitical moment and, as the Foreign Secretary made clear, all of us in the west—in the European Union and the United States—have a strong interest in upholding the international order that has lasted in Europe since the second world war.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Germany is particularly vulnerable to economic sanctions in relation to energy. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should work hard to convince the Americans to lift their restrictions on energy exports to Europe, as that would take pressure off Germany in this regard?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well taken. My research in recent days has shown me that, notwithstanding the importance of looking again at the capacity for, say, liquid natural gas to be exported to the European Union from the United States, given its developing capabilities in shale gas and shale oil, this is not simply a matter of regarding energy as a strategic asset. We must also take into account the capabilities and facilities at the ports, for example. This is a longer-term endeavour and, critical though it is to be able to strengthen the resilience and diversity of the European Union’s energy supplies, the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests would not provide an immediate resolution to the crisis. It is important that we look at the issue, however.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Would my right hon. Friend like to correct the wrong impression that the Foreign Secretary gave—possibly inadvertently—when he referred to a Russian member of the Socialist Group of the Council of Europe? There is a tiny and uninfluential group of Russians in the Socialist Group, but the group of which the Conservatives have been members for a long time is dominated by Putin’s representatives and those of a similar character from other countries. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the long record of the Socialist Group in opposing Putin, especially on Chechnya?
Mr Alexander
I am certainly happy to echo my hon. Friend’s point about the actions of the Socialist Group in relation to Chechnya, but given the severity of this moment in international affairs, it ill behoves the House to descend into a partisan exchange on which groups our respective representatives belong to in the Council of Europe. I understand that action has been taken by Conservative members of the Council of Europe—I am sure that the Leader of the House will set out the details at the end of the debate today—but it is important to speak with one voice at this critical moment in international affairs.
Mr Charles Walker
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Russia is not the power that it once was? It is riddled with corruption, and with a population of only 143 million, it has a failing demographic. Male life expectancy there is barely 60. Russia is not the great bear that it pretends to be.
Mr Alexander
I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. There has been too much commentary in recent days on the strategic genius of President Putin. In fact, he has been obliged to act out of weakness, rather than strength. Let us remember that this was the Russian President who viewed a Eurasian union as a credible alternative to the European Union. He has been unable to use soft power to secure the support of his potential allies and neighbours; instead, he has had to use hard power as a consequence of his unpopularity and of his sense of a loss of control following the events that we witnessed on the streets of Kiev.
This is not simply a matter of Russia facing demographic challenges, or of its abject failure to diversify its economy beyond the primary extraction of energy to move towards a more advanced form of economy, or of the very real corruption that continues to bedevil Russian society and the Russian economy; this is also about the fact that Putin is unable to secure the willing support of neighbouring countries, and that he is having to secure support through the use of military force. That represents a significant failure, rather than a success. Let us remember that President Putin has just spent $50 billion trying to accumulate soft power with the Sochi Olympics. What a waste of $50 billion, given that the international community is now seeing the Russian leadership’s true character through its action in Ukraine.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Is it not another important factor that the Russian Federation is now much more dependent on the international community than was the case in the old days of the Soviet Union? In those days, it had no stock exchange, and the rouble is now much more exchangeable than it was. Putin reportedly had to spend £2.5 billion shoring up the rouble in one day when he first went into Crimea.
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman’s point is well taken. Russia is now significantly more integrated in the global economy than it was at the time of the invasion of Georgia in 2008, let alone during the earlier era of Soviet expansionism, to which many people have drawn comparisons recently.
Mr Alexander
I want to make a little more progress.
Today, the European Union is Russia’s largest economic partner, with an annual trade of £275 billion. The UK alone handles at least £2 billion of Russian business in financial services a year. Let us also remember that as a result of the corruption that I have mentioned, the Russian economy has witnessed significant levels of capital flight in recent years, as well as rising levels of Russian prosperity as a consequence of energy. In that sense, there is a real and enduring vulnerability among the Russian elites to the travel bans and asset freezes that have been put on the table by other European leaders in recent days. Let us also not forget that a central part of President Putin’s claim to legitimacy in the Russian Federation has been based on a guarantee of rising prosperity. However, we have already seen the effect that the proposed actions by European leaders has had on the rouble and the Russian stock exchange.
In the immediate term, the most powerful means to alter the Kremlin’s course is to target those elites on whom it relies for its support. That is why I hope that at the European Council meeting due to take place later this week, EU leaders will consider further expanding the list of Ukrainian and Russian officials subjected to these targeted measures. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s indication that that appears to be the British Government’s approach, ahead of the Council meeting on Thursday and Friday. I would also be grateful if the Leader of the House could confirm in his winding up whether, at that Council meeting, the UK Government will be urging the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit, which is still scheduled to take place in Sochi in June.
Labour has also argued that further diplomatic pressure can and should be applied in the short term by seeking agreement among the G7 on suspending Russia from the G8 group of the world’s largest economies unless President Putin changes course. I was intrigued by the Foreign Secretary’s remarks at the Dispatch Box on that subject. I understand that indications have been given by No. 10 since this debate began that the British Government could take further action in relation to the G7, as distinct from the G8. Will the Leader of the House clarify the position, not only on the cancellation of the G8 meeting but on Russia’s suspension from the G8? I think that the Foreign Secretary has indicated the willingness of the G7 countries to meet together as an alternative grouping to the G8, as a result of the Russians’ recent flagrant breach of the law.
Given the precedents that have been set by Russia, the European Union must also be prepared to increase the pressure if the short-term measures are unsuccessful. I certainly welcome the bilateral measures, which we heard about for the first time this afternoon, relating to UK-Russian military co-operation and to the steps that the UK Government are taking in relation to arms exports. In the medium term, the European Union must be prepared to consider stronger sanctions against Russia’s broader economic interests, such as its energy exports or its banking sector. Such decisions should not be taken lightly, and the burden on EU domestic markets must not be ignored, but, if required, those options must remain available to European leaders when they gather in the coming days.
Alongside short and medium-term pressure on Russia, it is also surely vital that the European Union considers the long-term strategic implications of the current crisis. I welcome the fact that at yesterday’s meeting EU Foreign Ministers met the EU Energy Commissioner. I encourage the EU to undertake urgent work on exploring ways of proliferating and diversifying European energy imports in the future.
Let me turn now to my final substantive point. As the Opposition, we do not believe that the crisis can be resolved simply by applying ever more pressure on Russia to change course. Effective engagement with Russia remains key to helping secure the diplomatic de-escalation and resolution of the crisis. In particular, the work done by EU High Representative Cathy Ashton in engaging with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in recent weeks has been welcome. I also welcome the dialogue that took place last week in London between the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov. At that meeting, the Secretary of State made it clear that in the view of the United States, Russia has legitimate interests—historical, cultural and strategic—in Ukraine.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the tone of this part of his speech. Despite everything that has been said over the past hour, we do have a bit of a problem in that a majority of people living in Crimea want to be part of Russia, and they had been part of Russia for 300 years, apart from administrative diktat in recent times. They also have a right to self-determination.
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman’s point is a moot one given the circumstances in which the referendum took place. No one disputes the fact that there is a significant number of Russian speakers within Crimea, but it is a dangerous path to walk to suggest that the circumstances in which that referendum was conducted—in the shadow of Russian guns—in any way provide a free and fair expression of the will of the people of Crimea. Incidentally, it was also a flagrant breach of the Ukrainian constitution. Although it is important to recognise that Russia has legitimate interests, it is equally important to be clear and categoric in our condemnation of the referendum that took place at the weekend.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Is it not also the case that just last year, opinion polls showed that only 23% of people in Crimea wanted to be part of Russia?
Mr Alexander
As my hon. Friend knows, in circumstances such as this I am often given to say that opinion polls come and go, but I can assure him that he is absolutely right in recognising the fact that the poll that took place this week cannot be taken as a serious reflection of the breadth of opinion across Crimea. As the Foreign Secretary said, the Tatars, who for understandable historical reasons have very deep anxieties about what the future holds, given the past experience of deportation to Siberia, largely boycotted the poll. There are clear instances of intimidation, and anything that would be considered free and fair is very far from what took place in Crimea this weekend.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. As I expected, he is making some measured comments. Is not the more fundamental point here that if we concede a precedent in Crimea, we are saying that it is open house for Russia to annex what ever part of its zone of influence it likes?
Mr Alexander
The hon. Gentleman eloquently highlights the extent of cross-party agreement on this issue. This is a huge geopolitical moment, and if we take our multilateral obligations seriously—as a permanent member of the Security Council, a member of NATO and a member of the European Union—these moments test us as an international community. In that sense, the signal that would be sent out, however inadvertently, by an isolationist attitude that says that this is a far away country and that there is nothing to worry about has very dangerous historical precedent. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a necessary corrective to some of the commentary that we have read in newspapers in recent days.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
What has not been mentioned is that we have a large Ukrainian diaspora in the UK and indeed in Rochdale, some of whom I met on Saturday night. Many of them are extremely worried about their family in Ukraine and the fact that the problem might spread. Is there any reassurance that can be given to those people?
Mr Alexander
I fully appreciate that this must be a deeply troubling time for all those with friends, relatives and kith and kin in Ukraine. The best mechanism by which they can get the assurances they understandably want on behalf of their families is the diplomatic resolution which I trust the British Government are endeavouring to deliver, and which we need to work in co-operation with our international partners to secure.
Mr Alexander
Let me try to make a little more progress because I am conscious of the need to wind up, given the enthusiasm of Back Benchers to make their contributions.
There is an important point in relation to the tone of the exchanges with Russia. As the Foreign Secretary acknowledged, it is vital that in those exchanges a clear message is sent that this is not a “zero-sum game” between Russia and the west. I hope that it will be in that spirit that EU leaders agree the political part of the association agreement with Ukraine, which is due to be signed in the coming days. As well as sustaining this dialogue between Russia, the US and the EU, we should not forget the urgency of facilitating direct dialogue between the Russian and Ukrainian authorities.
I note that the EU has previously supported the establishment of a contact group, and note further that only yesterday Russia proposed the establishment of a support group for Ukraine. The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that this group would push for Ukrainian recognition of the Crimean referendum, which is clearly a difficult issue for the international community; urge Ukraine to implement portions of the 21 February peace deal; encourage Ukraine to adopt a new constitution setting out broad powers for the country’s regions; and require Ukraine to uphold military and political neutrality.
When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, I would appreciate it if he could set out the British Government’s thinking on both these proposals—on the contact group that has been advocated by Germany and the European Union and on the contact group that was proposed by the Russian Foreign Minister yesterday.
In conclusion, the Russian invasion of Crimea demands international condemnation. We should uphold the principle of international law and recognise Ukraine as a sovereign state. Its cultural, linguistic, and historical affinities with Russia do not, and never will, justify the recent breaching of the international multilateral legal norms that have guided our actions since world war two. Furthermore, what those who oppose further specific economic and financial measures must understand is that there will be real and lasting consequences for the west of not demonstrating resolve in the days and weeks ahead. I fear that the consequences are already clear. We have a Russia emboldened in its ambitions towards Ukraine; a central Europe ever more fearful of future political destabilisation and military insecurity; and a United States increasingly concerned about Europe's willingness to act, even diplomatically and economically, in the face of such threats. A combination of deft diplomacy, shared resolve and a unified response are the best means by which we can de-escalate this continuous and dangerous crisis, and ultimately re-affirm Ukrainian sovereignty and preserve European security. The British Government will have our support in working to achieve that desired outcome.
Mr Speaker
Order. In the light of the very large number of Members seeking to contribute to this debate, I have, sadly, to impose a five-minute limit on Back Bench speeches with immediate effect.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)
The crisis we are living through is a crisis not just for Ukraine but for every European country, including the United Kingdom. For the first time since 1945, a European state has invaded the territory of another European state and annexed part of its territory. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, President Obama and other European leaders have stressed, as has the shadow Foreign Secretary, that this is a crucial moment in the history of Europe. That fine rhetoric will be justified only if it is matched by our response to what is happening and what could still happen. Sadly, the measures on visa controls and asset freezes for individuals, which have been announced by both the United States and the European Union, are a pathetic and feeble response. They do not match the seriousness of the situation, which those implementing the responses have acknowledged that we face at the present time.
The issue is not simply one of Crimea. Crimea is of no strategic importance to Russia—Sevastopol is important but it has had control of Sevastopol for years. The Russian objective is effectively to control all the areas of the former Soviet state, not necessarily by reintegrating them into the Russian Federation but by ensuring that they become Russian dependencies. That will happen because we have seen already that the response to the measures announced so far has been one of contempt by Moscow, and that could continue if we do not respond more robustly.
The only way in which we can effectively hope to have a significant impact on Mr Putin's thinking is through financial and economic sanctions. That approach has become much more effective in recent years. We know that Iran is at the negotiating table because of the success of the financial and banking sanctions it has experienced. Dare I say it, but the United Kingdom withdrew from Suez because of the United States’ threat of financial sanctions against this country—a threat that was very effective even many years ago.
The Russian economy is not the Soviet economy. It is much more integrated and I noted with some interest that the chairman of Gazprom apparently sold all his shares in the company some days before the crisis reached its peak. Financial sanctions will not change the world, but Putin would have to live with a Russian economy in which no other part of the world would invest and in which billions were coming off the Russian stock exchange. The crucial ingredient is access to the world financial markets, particularly the financial markets of this country, of Europe and of the United States.
I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I was encouraged when he said that the further measures for which the British Government will be pressing will be economical and in trade: they have to be, and they have to include financial sanctions. Of course, one cannot impose sanctions against another country without accepting some difficulties for oneself. I was encouraged that the Financial Times, of all newspapers, given its normal clientele, said this morning in its editorial that the Europeans
“must decide whether it attaches more importance to its international credibility than its commercial interest.”
I believe that that is a proper reflection of the measure of events.
We must also face the crucial question of what happens if the British Government are robust—I hope that they will be; in the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said, perhaps they are being robust, but I shall wait to see what happens—but cannot get the agreement of some other European countries. What will happen if they remain, in my words, feeble in their response? Western unity is important—I do not doubt that—but western action is even more important. If, at the end of the day, we cannot get unanimity, I would want to see the British Government, as well as, I hope, the American Government and those of a range of European countries, imposing financial sanctions, even if we cannot get full unanimity in the international community.
We must ensure two things. First, Mr Putin must feel financial pain in the Russian economy because of what he is doing. Secondly, we must be able to look ourselves in the eye and say that we did all that we could, all that was reasonable and all that was available to us to ensure that the horrors of the 1930s were not repeated, not in exactly the same form, but in a form that will damage European security and stability for a generation to come.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) for his superb speech and I agree with every single word he said.
I welcome the fact that the Government have allowed time for the debate, although given the seriousness of the threat to security and peace in Europe—the worst for decades—it would have been nice if we had had a little more time. Perhaps we can have some more time in the days and weeks to come.
Given the time limit, I shall restrict my comments to asset freezes and travel bans. I welcome what was announced yesterday by the European Union and United States, but the mood of this House is that that did not go nearly far enough. As the Foreign Secretary will know, Russia is based on a kleptocracy and a lot of the corrupt senior officials and politicians around President Putin have their money in London. Russia’s own central bank has estimated that two thirds of the Russian assets and money in London come from the proceeds of crime and corruption, yet all the organisations that campaign on this issue, from Transparency International to anti-corruption organisations, have said for a long time that Britain has a very poor record of doing anything about that.
Two years ago, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) tabled a motion in this House that was unanimously passed. It called on the Government to take measures similar to those taken by the United States and along the lines of the Magnitsky Act that would have imposed asset freezes and travel bans on named Russian officials who were associated with the outrageous torture and murder of the Russian lawyer, Magnitsky. I am afraid that the Government did nothing and, as far as I can see, have done nothing since. None of the names announced by the European Union is on the Magnitsky list. They all seem to have a very narrow association with the immediate military action in the Crimea.
The Foreign Secretary said that he had the powers to act, so if the Government want to do something now why does he not announce—the Leader of the House could even announce this when he winds up the debate—that the Government will honour the will of this House, unanimously passed two years ago, and introduce similar measures to those introduced by the Americans? Only when the kleptocracy and the elite around President Putin begin to feel some of the pain of the sanctions and measures that have been outlined will Putin feel anything and realise how intolerable his actions were.
I appeal to the Government to go much further at the European Council on Thursday and finally to take meaningful action on the money laundering and dirty money in London and against those Russian officials who are propping up Putin and putting their money here.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I have the advantage of agreeing with a great deal of what has been said, with one exception: the intervention made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who I regret to see is no longer in his place, which was, I think, particularly inept. He and his colleagues complain when those of us who are opposed to independence argue that it might lead to introspection, but I rather fancy that he has made my point more directly than I could have.
As has already been acknowledged, the issue is not just about the fate of Ukraine and Crimea. It has long-term consequences for European security and the transatlantic alliance. I admit to some miscalculations about Russia. I did not calculate how the collective mood of Russia was so ready to respond to a dominant and ruthless leadership, albeit out of weakness. Nor did I expect that the perestroika and glasnost that we welcomed so enthusiastically in this country and elsewhere would become so despised at home in Russia. Nor did I expect that that disillusionment would spawn a determination to try to recreate a sphere of influence.
It is worth reminding ourselves on this occasion that it was Mr Putin who said that the break-up of the Soviet Union had been the single greatest foreign policy mistake of the 20th century, conveniently ignoring the fact that the break-up was inevitable for a variety of reasons that we need not discuss today. Anyone who heard his speech today will have found a great deal of difficulty in accepting the proposition that he did not want to restore the cold war when he somehow felt it was necessary to use the language of the cold war to support that proposition.
Mark Lazarowicz
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and I agree with what he is saying. Although we cannot ignore or get away from how the mood has changed in many parts of Russia, we should nevertheless not forget that many people in Russia still do not support what the Government are doing. Indeed, tens of thousands marched for peace in Moscow just a few days ago. We should remember that and pay tribute to those who, with great courage, are still speaking up for human rights and democracy in Russia itself.
Sir Menzies Campbell
I admire the courage of those who seek to protest against a leadership so potentially brutal and determined as that explained by Mr Putin.
The other calculation that I made, and perhaps others would admit to this too, was that we should have seen the signs in relation to Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It is easy to point to the history, but it is much more difficult to determine how to respond to the contemporary issues.
Mark Reckless
My right hon. and learned Friend mentions Abkhazia and South Ossetia. As chairman of the all-party group on Georgia I have been struck by how our Georgian friends see Russian interests not so much in Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Crimea but in intimidating Governments, whether in Tbilisi or Kiev.
Sir Menzies Campbell
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
I was turning to the question of how to respond. Since the very beginning, it has been accepted that a military engagement in response simply is not possible. If we consider carefully what the prospect would have been for a nuclear alliance facing a nuclear power across Europe, albeit initially in conventional terms, the risks of something much more serious would be profound. As a parallel, let us remember the atmosphere when, in Pakistan and India, across the line of control there were a million men under arms, and the possibility that some provocation or something of the kind could have brought grievous consequences.
Today, the Russians have offered a contact group. That is disingenuous in the extreme, because the basis upon which that offer is made is that Ukraine and the rest of the world should accept and endorse the illegality of the conduct that has given rise to the crisis of the moment.
How do we proceed? We proceed, I hope, diplomatically, by persevering and promoting the isolation that Russia found itself in at the Security Council—an isolation so considerable that China, which would normally be predicted to take the side of Russia, decided to abstain. On sanctions, I agree with much that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said a moment or two ago. We have to ask ourselves what the cost would be, but we also have to ask ourselves what the cost of not imposing sanctions would be, and take a long-term rather than a short-term view.
Russia is now emboldened by energy resources and fuelled by imagined slights, with a new confidence, but as has already been pointed out, that confidence is built on very shaky economic grounds. If there is an area of fallibility, that is in the Russian economy. That is why anything that can be agreed in order to impose pressure on that economy seems to me entirely worth while. I understand that Crimea has decided to adopt the rouble as its currency—a case of joining the sinking ship, rather than leaving it.
I accept the point that has been powerfully made by a number of contributors that the European Union and the United States of America must stand together. To quote a former Prime Minister whom I do not commonly quote, “This is no time to wobble.”
Zac Goldsmith
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a very eloquent speech and has dwelt considerably on the pressures that we need to bring to bear on Russia. Will he explain what he believes a successful, realistic resolution will look like?
Sir Menzies Campbell
I do not think anyone can answer that question. My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but I do not believe anyone can answer it at this stage, because in the end there will have to be a diplomatic solution. The one thing that is essential is that when these negotiations and discussions break out, as we hope they will, those on behalf of the Ukraine, the European Union and the United States are firmly in a position to say that if a diplomatic solution does not work, more can be done.
One of the issues that has been before us in Europe recently is the question of short-range nuclear weapons. There was a possibility of disarmament, both from the United States’ holdings and from Russia. That is no longer possible. In Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, people will be relieved that that possibility is off the table.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Russia’s military deployment into Ukrainian territory is extremely disturbing and without justification. That invasion is reminiscent of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. I was just a boy at the time but I can still remember those events in 1968. It took nearly 30 years to get the Soviets out of Czechoslovakia. The only difference in the case of the recent invasion by Russia is that it was done by troops who did not dare to speak their name. We saw troops in what were obviously Russian uniforms, but with no insignia identifying them as Russian. We saw people in masks or covering their faces who did not respond to questions from interviewers.
Russia is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. That was hardly about security or co-operation in Europe. It was a unilateral invasion for its own purposes. I am a member of the OSCE parliamentary assembly and regularly meet Russian, Ukrainian and other members from Parliaments across the OSCE area. To me, recent events are a disgrace. What happened beggars belief. There has been mention of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Georgia. If the conflict is not resolved fairly quickly by economic pressure, engagement and negotiation, it could turn into another of those frozen conflicts that we have seen elsewhere.
Strong and concerted action needs to be taken. I go some way with the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who said the response needs to go much further. The Foreign Secretary indicated today that there may be movement towards a G7 and away from a G8 if the G8 decides on such action.
I have acted as an observer at elections in Russia. I went to observe the last Duma elections in St Petersburg and saw the sorts of things that can happen. We know that the referendum was illegal. It was not sanctioned in Kiev or anywhere other than in Moscow. As an observer at those elections in St Petersburg, I remember watching a parliamentary count, seeing the figures being given out, seeing two Russian police officers escort those ballot boxes into a van, and the van driving off to nowhere. At the count afterwards, the figures that we were given were totally different from those assigned to that polling station when we were there. So we know how Putin and his people can organise elections. We know that there have been elections in Russia when the turnout has been more than 100%. The difference between the figures that were given for the number of people in Crimea who wanted to be part of Russia and the figures that we saw last weekend tells its own story.
Economic sanctions are important, as is energy policy. In the UK and particularly in my county, Lancashire, we are looking at fracking and shale gas as a future option. We also produce all the nuclear rods for the nuclear power stations throughout the country, so Britain can look forward to self-sustainable energy. Other parts of Europe and the European Union are not so fortunate. They will have to wean themselves off Russian gas and oil, because if Russia chooses to defend Russian-speaking people, as it would say, in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Transnistria, Moldova or any other part of Europe, the omens are very bad indeed. I take the point that was made earlier that unless the present situation is handled properly, it could be a re-run of the 1930s. Firm action now by our Government and Governments in Europe and the United States is essential if this is not to descend into the spectacle that we saw in the 1930s.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick), a valuable member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Russia is not listening to the international community. It was totally alone in the Security Council, with even its closest ally, China, abstaining. I strongly suspect that in a wider vote in the UN, it would have few friends. We should look hard at Russia’s motives. I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), when he says that Russia is operating from a position of weakness at present. I believe its primary motive is to protect its naval ports at Sevastapol which, together with Tartus in Syria, is vital to its interests. If Ukraine moves closer to Europe, Russia will not feel comfortable about having a major strategic asset on what it would consider foreign land.
Secondly, I believe that Russia views with growing alarm plans to build gas pipelines across Ukraine. This weakens its dominant position as a major supplier of gas to the European Union. Thirdly, Ukraine, the second most powerful economy in the former Soviet Union, is a linchpin to its plan to build the so-called Eurasian Economic Union, a Moscow-led version of the European Union. The fourth, and the most worrying, is hubris. Anyone watching the way in which President Putin was acclaimed at the Sochi Olympics will realise that he is playing to the national stage.
It is a risky strategy. There is a strong chance that Ukraine will sink into chaos and fragmentation. But there is one chink of light. This is not the 1930s and echoes of Nazi imperialism or the post-war growth of the Soviet Union. Russia is now integrated into the global economy. Its businesses need western financial institutions and access to capital markets. If we are to make President Putin see sense, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) pointed out, it is through financial and economic sanctions. The Foreign Secretary knows this, and I salute the way that he has persevered with diplomacy. I have to confess that I distance myself from those who described yesterday’s moves as pathetic. He is right to keep diplomatic channels open and to give the Russians a chance to de-escalate. No one wants a conflict with Russia, and we have to accept that they have very strong hand. As we fight international terrorism, as we seek a resolution in Syria, as we pursue a permanent nuclear deal with Iran, as we withdraw from Afghanistan, we need the lines of communication open, and the Russians know it.
I suspect that round 3 of sanctions is inevitable and necessary, but I think we can also agree that sanctions are a double-edged sword. There are no cost-free sanctions. We have a huge stake in BP’s commitment to the Russian energy giant Rosneft. This is the company in which millions of British pensioners have invested their pensions. At the same time, we have to recognise—
Sir Gerald Howarth
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, but does he agree that the UK is perhaps not so badly placed as others, in that only 1.6% of our exports go to Russia, and only 1.7% of our imports come from Russia, and we are dependent on Russian energy for only 1% of our natural gas requirement?
Sir Richard Ottaway
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this will entail major strategic rethinking, not so much by Britain, but by the rest of Europe.
We have to recognise that this is a difficult time for Germany, which is hugely dependent on Russia for its energy supplies and exports. Angela Merkel is making the right noises, but her still fragile economic recovery can ill afford the volatility arising from sanction plans, and we must help Germany as much as we can. In a strange way, this may be a moment of truth for Germany. In the post-war years, it has held back on major security and defence issues, but this saga is a wake-up call, not just for Germany but for all of Europe and its strategy. Russia will not hesitate to use its energy assets as a tool of foreign policy. It did it in Georgia, and we see it again in Ukraine today. Europe must now work towards reducing its dependency on Russia for its energy supplies, and building those pipelines passing to the south of Russia should be a priority.
Europe must reverse its downward trend in defence expenditure. Some NATO partners have virtually no defence capacity whatsoever. Crimea may not be of any direct strategic significance to us, but how we deal with this crisis has serious geopolitical implications. So let us speak in a language that Russia understands. We may not go to war over Ukraine, but the Baltic states, which gained independence from the Soviets with the fall of the Berlin wall, are a different case. They are members of the EU, of NATO and of the United Nations. Defence of these allies is our red line, and that needs to be marked out now, in indelible ink, before it is too late.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I have not traditionally participated in foreign policy debates, but I am pleased to be able to do so today because I feel strongly about the situation facing Ukraine. Indeed, it should be a huge concern to all those who believe in democracy and freedom—two words that we should remember in the context of this debate. Not only have we seen the military build-up in Crimea; we have also seen the increased Russian military presence in Kaliningrad, on the borders of Poland and Lithuania. On top of that, as Lord Ashdown pointed out yesterday, there is potential economic expansionism in the Balkans, in relation to Greater Serbia and Republika Srpska, in their ongoing communications with the Kremlin.
All that suggests that we could be embarking on a new era of aggressive Russian expansionism. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) that that is from a position of weakness, but nevertheless it is aggressive Russian expansionism. It is in the context, over the past 60 years or so, of relatively peaceful co-existence, which has been the focus of the diplomatic relationship between the west and Russia. However, since the end of the cold war, we have seen the welcome unleashing of democratic forces in the old satellite states of the Soviet bloc. As those have gathered pace, that peaceful co-existence with Russia has become increasingly fraught and tense, as Russia finds it difficult to deal with the new relationships that are being forged in Europe.
The key question for me is whether the culture, which in recent times has focused on embracing Russia, attempting to draw it ever closer into the economic fold of the EU and US, has begun to falter. Can it respond effectively to what is unfolding before our eyes? The suggestion so far is that the west is adopting an approach that is exactly in keeping with this culture, which has dominated western thinking in the post-war period and which is always aimed at bringing Russia to the negotiating table. I join the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) in saying that that position is very, very weak indeed. All the evidence on the table suggests that it will not work. We have a Russian President who does not care a jot what the west, the US or the EU think about his actions in Crimea. We are taking huge risks with European security and peace if we fail to acknowledge that fact.
I also believe that we are taking significant risks because we are in danger of witnessing the west slipping by degrees from what looks like a sensible cautious response to the situation in Crimea and Ukraine, towards what would effectively be appeasement of an aggressor. This is where the parallels with the 1930s become relevant. That is what we have to guard against. The last thing the west needs to see is a situation in which we effectively acknowledge that the Russians have annexed Crimea and that we will do nothing significant or meaningful about it. I cannot think of a worse signal from the EU and the US than allowing that situation to materialise. I agree entirely with what everyone has said about the need for us to speak with one voice in ensuring that we do not allow Russia effectively to get away with it. We need to bear in mind too that events are likely to transpire that require the more robust response that some hon. Members would like to see—much more robust than anything we have allowed for so far. We are talking about economic sanctions and trade sanctions.
I finish by saying to the Foreign Secretary that I was pleased to hear his much more robust attitude towards the situation this afternoon. When he goes to the European Council later this week, that determination to develop a much more robust response towards the situation in Crimea needs to be seen through and articulated as dramatically there as it has been here today.
James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con)
We are dealing, as I suspect the Foreign Secretary is well aware, with somebody who is little more than an aggressive, weak and corrupt bully. The situation we see unfolding is ominous for the future of Europe and obviously dangerous for the future of Ukraine itself. Once influence was lost, once President Yanukovych left Ukraine, almost immediately we saw troops marching into Crimea, under the guise of being there on holiday or for unofficial reasons. It was claimed that the Russian army was not really there, but in the full glare of the international media it very clearly was and is.
Upon that has now been built a referendum that can only be described as farcical. I have spent some time over the past year in this place debating referendums and how they should work. I know how complex it is to get something that accurately reflects the will of the people and unites those of different political opinions in accepting its result. There has been no effort whatsoever to hold a free and fair referendum in Crimea. There was 10 days’ notice, the question was changed three times and there was no definitive electoral roll, so we do not even know who was entitled to vote.
As has been said, the referendum was held in the shadow of the guns of Russian troops. It has no legitimacy. Even the result—more than 95% voted to be part of Russia—undermines the entire process. Yet we now find that a weakened Russia, which is lashing out at its neighbours because of the weakness around them, and in order to retain a semblance of influence over them, has forced itself into a situation in which it is now dominant in Crimea.
It is difficult to ascertain, even from the discussions that have taken place in this debate, what we will do about that and what the end position we want to achieve looks like. That worries me, because it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent, and not only for the situation before us, but for the future. There is no real chance that Mr Putin will decide all of a sudden that he wants to be incredibly reasonable, to respect proper democracy and to do things in a proper way. He cannot do that, because his image at home is built upon being the strong man who stands up to the caricature of the west that he paints for his domestic audience.
Yet we sit here and debate sanctions. We talk about restricting travel for 21 people. We talk about no longer attending, or inviting Russia to attend, talks on a range of issues, or stopping the streamlining of visas. It is right that we consider all those measures, but they are obviously not enough. They will not change dramatically the direction of travel of a President who is determined to achieve something that we do not support, that should not happen and that is clearly illegal under international law.
It is fascinating that even today we have seen Putin tell his Parliament that he wants to streamline the process for recognising Crimea as an independent state. There was talk earlier of Kosovo, which is still not recognised by Russia. I suspect that there is no chance of Russia recognising it in the medium term. That will not happen, even though it should. On Ukraine, however, where there has been an occupation, an illegal referendum and a disastrous series of events, we have heard a relatively weak response, up until now—I welcome the change in tone that I think we are hearing—from the western world. We see Russia rushing to recognise Crimea as an independent state. That is not a good situation to be in. We will not stop a bully behaving as such by displaying repeated acts of weakness and indecision towards him. We need to take firmer and stronger action, within the restrictions that we all recognise exist and the reality that some options are sadly off the table.
Last week I was pleased to welcome Andriy Shevchenko to Parliament. He addressed the all-party group on Ukraine and told us how things were on the ground in Ukraine and how the experiences were affecting democracy in his country. Next week I hope that we will be visited by some more Ukrainian parliamentarians, including Vitali Klitschko, Maria Ionova and Petro Poroshenko, and Andriy Shevchenko will visit again. He is keen to bring that delegation here. I hope that colleagues will take the time to listen to him and demonstrate their support for what he is trying to achieve.
We will not resolve the situation and get back on to the right path by showing weakness, indecision and a failure to act. We need to take strong measures and real action if we are to change President Putin’s mind.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) on his speech—he just persuaded me against the idea of holding referendums very often.
What more do we really need to know about Vladimir Putin? Even if we leave aside for a moment his self-enrichment, which would put Victor Yanukovych, Imelda Marcos and Muammar Gaddafi to shame; the way in which misinformation, media manipulation and the repression of independent journalists are a standard part of the Putin package; and the perversion of the criminal justice system in Russia, which means that more than 95% of all prosecutions lead to conviction, because they are determined by political persuasion, rather than justice; what more do we need to know?
Chris Bryant
I do not know which point it is, but of course I will give way.
Mr Newmark
He seems to have forgotten one important point. You can add targeted assassinations on British soil to your list.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not have a list, but I think that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does.
Chris Bryant
That was one of the other things I was leaving aside for a moment.
We know how Putin reacts in a crisis. That is what really worries me. He always reacts with extreme force. In Beslan the state used such force to resolve a hostage crisis that 334 of the hostages, including 186 children, were killed. When terrorists from the Chechen republic took over a theatre in Moscow, the state’s intervention ended up killing not only all the terrorists, but 130 of the hostages.
We also know about his territorial ambition. I can do no better than quote the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). During a debate on Georgia in the previous Parliament, he said:
“Whatever one may think of Georgia’s actions on 7 August, Russia used grossly disproportionate force in response, and by subsequently recognising its supported regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia is attempting to redraw the map of Europe by force”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 686.]
That is exactly what we are hearing again today. What more do we need to know?
In Syria, Putin actively prevented an early resolution to the conflict and assisted Assad’s barbarous regime in repressing its people, and all for the strategic advantage that accrues to Russia, as has already been said, from its naval base in Tartus, which is vital for access to the Mediterranean. Now, after trying to bribe, bully and coerce the whole of Ukraine into aligning itself with Russia and against the European Union, he has effectively annexed part of an independent country.
I am afraid that the international response, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said, has thus far been pitiful and spineless. People have even trotted out in this Chamber the argument that most of the people in Crimea are Russian speaking and wanted to join Russia in the first place. Can Members not hear history running through the decades? In 1938 the British apologists for Hitler, combined with those who felt that Germany had been treated badly after the first world war, combined with the British mercantilists who wanted to do more business with Germany, and combined with the British cowards who wanted to avoid war at all costs, argued, using the same argument that has been advanced today, that the vast majority of the people in the Sudetenland were really German and wanted to be part of Germany.
I have no desire for us to be at war, or for there to be a war of any kind. I opposed the proposed military intervention in Syria for the simple reason that I could not see how bombing that country would help. However, we should be ready for any eventuality. I was saddened that when I formally asked the Foreign Secretary on 30 November 2011 whether he would rule out the use of force in tackling Iran’s illegal nuclear ambitions, he refused to do so. Others agreed with him. I was told, including by Members on my side of the House, “Don’t be silly. You simply can’t rule things like that out.” Well, perhaps they were right, but I want to ask now why on earth we ruled out any military intervention, in whatever set of circumstances and at whatever stage, from the very beginning of Putin’s advances into Ukraine. I am not arguing for war; I am simply asking why we do one thing for Iran but say exactly the opposite when dealing with Russia.
I think that the EU has shown little honour in this. The Ukrainian Government have behaved with extraordinary and admirable restraint.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In the last but one Foreign Office questions, I asked the Foreign Secretary what the fact that NATO has a co-operation agreement with Ukraine means, and he gave the impression that I was asking for war. I was not asking for war; I just wanted to put the military options on the table.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he also agrees with the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who spoke earlier.
There has been little honour in the way that Britain, France and the United States, having signed up to the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine, now make lots of great speeches but introduce the measliest level of sanctions and targeted interventions against Russian individuals.
The real problem is that we all know where this might all too easily be leading: to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova and Belarus. What will we say then? What will we do then? We have done far too little to safeguard European energy supply over the years. We have surrendered our military capacity to intervene. We have let commercial interests alone determine our foreign policy. We have failed to tackle deep Russian corruption within the EU, especially in Cyprus. It is not so much that we have let Russia pick us off country by country but that we in the European Union, country by country, have gone begging to Russia to try to do more business with it and left aside too many other issues.
There are things that we could and should be doing. We should target a much longer list of Russian officials. The Foreign Secretary referred, I think, to Leonid Slutsky. He should not be a member of the Socialist Group in the Council of Europe, and nor, for that matter, should his party. I am delighted that the Conservative party has now taken the action that it has, for which I had been arguing for some time. I cannot see for the life of me why the Government still use their slightly weaselly language about the potential of a Magnitsky list. It has been implemented by the United States of America, the European Union has called for it, and the Council of Europe is calling for it, and we should go down that route.
A Russian friend of mine says that Putin is not yet mad. That may be true, but what will our surrendering and our appeasement do for his sanity?
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary said that this is the most serious crisis of this century. I think it is probably the most serious crisis since the fall of the Berlin wall.
We should not be surprised by what has happened in Crimea. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said, we have seen it all before. We have seen it in Georgia, where Putin adopted exactly the same techniques as he has now used in Crimea—namely, issuing Russian passports, fomenting revolt among local anti-Russian sentiment so that pro-Russian sentiment can be expressed, and then going in on the pretext of saving his compatriots. This should not have come as a surprise to us, and he is clearly on a roll. The question is what we do now to prevent him from pursuing aggressive Russian expansionism, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) rightly described it. I agree with every single word she said, and I hope that such sentiments will get wider currency outside the House.
I agree with all those who believe that the response from the west has been feeble if not worse. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said himself that the credibility of the international order is at stake. The whole security of Europe, wider Europe and potentially elsewhere is at stake if this matter is not resolved. There is a feeling that the European leaders, in particular, are subject to some form of paralysis. They have been responding to events, which are overtaking them. They are behind the drag curve, and we need to take more vigorous action.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend speculate on what Putin thinks about our response so far, and on whether he is frightened by what might happen to him?
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I should think that Putin is laughing all the way to the bank. The bank may not be in London, but he will be laughing all the way to a bank. This is the whole point. He might be weak, and we have seen other weak leaders around the world, not least in Argentina, lashing out. I have some sympathy with the view that he is, as it were, lashing out, but the question is whether we continue to let him lash out or have to draw the line.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the Budapest agreement. We need to understand the significance of ignoring Russia’s flagrant breach of this agreement, to which it, the United Kingdom and the United States of America were signatories. The other European countries were not signatories, but we have a special position and the United States has a special position. This is not a guarantee of Ukraine’s borders, but it is a statement that the Russians
“respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine”.
Those borders have been infringed. The question arises of how we can possibly trust Russia if it is prepared so flagrantly to breach an agreement to which it signed up only 20 years ago.
Then the question is: where next? I have a British friend in eastern Ukraine who has been briefing me on what has been going there, and it is perfectly clear that Putin has won the propaganda war. He is telling all his people in Russia that Ukraine is run by a bunch of fascists and it is his duty to go and protect the Russian-speaking people there. The truth is, as my friend found out when he went on to the streets of Donetsk and listened to people’s accents, that these were not pro-Russian Ukrainians but pro-Russian Russians who had been bussed in. He said, “The accents I heard were from St Petersburg, not Donetsk.” Putin has been quite flagrantly provoking the Ukrainians. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, it is a great tribute to the Ukrainians that they have not risen to that provocation.
Sir Richard Ottaway
On the point about playing to the gallery in Russia, is my hon. Friend aware that Putin has gone up by 10% in the opinion polls since this incident started?
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am sure he has. Twenty years ago, I worked for the Sukhoi Design Bureau for a year, and Russians made it apparent to me that there is a strong sense of Russian nationalism and they did not want their country to be raped. Putin is clearly playing to that. He is a man who has photographs of himself stripped to the waist, bearing a gun, standing over a shot bear, and so on—a man who plants a Russian flag on the floor of the Arctic ocean. One has to ask oneself, “What sort of a guy is this?”
Let us ask what is next. It is perfectly clear from what my friend in eastern Ukraine is saying that Russia is on a roll. The Russians will move fast, and eastern Ukraine is at risk, because 34% of Ukraine’s economy is in the east. Crimea has no direct land link to Russia; it runs only through Ukraine. So where will the Russians go next? They will annex that land to give them direct access into Crimea. Where might Putin then go? To Odessa. That is why I said to the Defence Secretary yesterday that we need to take more robust action. If he manages to get to Odessa, Ukraine will become landlocked because it will have no access to the Black sea and no port.
These are very serious stakes. I do not know, Mr Speaker, whether you saw the BBC television series, “37 Days”, but it is chilling how the kinds of conversations heard there are being reflected in what we are discussing today. I have no wish to provoke military intervention and no wish to harm the Russian people, but I do believe that the security of Europe is at risk if we do not take action. We need to understand the risks of inaction. Turkey has talked about closing the Bosphorus to Russia because of its treatment of the Muslim Tatars in Crimea. The Russians have been exercising repeatedly on Ukraine’s borders, and it is time for NATO to act and put together some exercises. In my view—I say this to the Foreign Secretary—NATO should have a maritime exercise in the Black sea to serve notice on the Russians, “You do not go near Odessa.”
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) is completely right to call for much tougher action, because this is the first time since the end of the second world war that part of a sovereign European country has been annexed by another nation. He is also right to draw attention to the Budapest memorandum, because when we and the Americans signed it in 1994, we gave assurances to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and security.
The Prime Minister has said that Russia has committed a
“flagrant breach of international law”,
that what has happened is “unacceptable”, and that this is
“the most serious crisis in Europe this century.”
However, the European response, as the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), said earlier, has been absolutely pitiful. Limited measures on visas and assets have been announced for just 22 people, not a single one of whom is a member of Putin’s inner circle. European leaders might have wanted to send a signal without escalating the situation, but Putin’s response, which was to legitimise the outcome of the ludicrous and illegal referendum held over the weekend, was contemptuous.
Not content with moving Crimea to Russian time, Putin clearly wants to turn the clocks back completely to before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin—a former KGB colonel who regards the collapse of the iron curtain as a huge mistake—has made no secret of his belief that Russia should control former Soviet republics.
We have to ask ourselves what has actually changed for Putin, given that, to all intents and purposes, he is a brutal, cold war and Soviet-style dictator, terrorising his opponents at home, murdering them abroad, invading other countries and supporting terrorists such as Assad in conflicts elsewhere.
The only thing that does appear to have changed is that, as we saw with Syria, the west has become utterly impotent, weaker than ever before and unable—or unwilling—to stand up for its values, preferring instead to allow Russian oligarchs to use often ill-gotten gains to buy up huge swathes of London, our businesses, our football clubs and even our newspapers.
We should be pressing much more urgently for much more robust sanctions, such as further asset freezes and visa denials to members of the Duma who voted in favour of providing military support to Ukraine, thereby supporting Russia’s illegal invasion and continued occupation of Ukrainian sovereign territory.
We should seize the foreign currency assets of the Russian Government, Russia’s central bank and Russian state-owned companies. It is estimated that two thirds of the $56 billion moved out of Russia in 2012 were the proceeds of crimes, bribes to state officials and tax fraud. Let us make Putin’s elite cronies and financial backers choose between supporting his dictatorship at home and invasions abroad on the one hand and their wealth on the other. We should change the locks on their fancy apartments in Kensington, board up the mansions they have bought in the home counties, and empty their bank accounts to show them that the west will not tolerate the sort of brutality and corruption that passes for government and business in Putin’s Russia.
We should kick Russia out of the G8—I think that is absolutely clear. The summit due to be held in Sochi in June should be cancelled and Russia should be suspended from the Council of Europe. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s earlier statement about military exports, but Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation should be suspended and existing trade negotiations cancelled.
Putin will obviously use western dependence on Russia’s state-owned and state-controlled energy companies to try to ward off tougher measures, so we must decrease that dependence in the long term and we should immediately explore how western energy imports can be diversified away from Russia.
The truth is that the west needs to decide which is more important: our values and commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law, or the dubious benefits of the west’s commercial relationships with Russia.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and am encouraged that every speaker in this debate has sent a strong message. I commend in particular the powerful speech by the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I have chaired the all-party British-Ukraine group for the past four years. I was last in Ukraine six months ago—in Yalta in Crimea—attending the European strategy conference, at which representatives of all the parties in the Ukrainian Parliament, with the single exception of the Communist party, made clear their absolute commitment to pursuing the path towards closer European association through the association agreement and the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement. However, even then the warning signs were there.
If we read President Putin’s speeches about Eurasian economic union over the past couple of years, we will see that his clear ambition is not just free trade but building a political union. Discussing economic unions is familiar to us in the west, but his is a much more sinister ambition.
A few weeks before the conference in Yalta, I was in Armenia. The Armenians had also said that they wanted closer association, but then came under huge pressure from Russia, including threats to their security and economics. As a result, the Armenians announced that they were no longer pursuing European integration, but instead would join the Eurasian customs union.
Similarly, Ukraine was put under massive pressure and the result was that it, too, changed course. What President Putin did not expect was the extraordinary protests that took place across Ukraine afterwards, particularly in Maidan. In debating Russia’s actions, we must not forget the crimes committed in Maidan and the many heroes who died in Ukraine displaying immense courage. They still need justice.
I say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who is sitting on the Front Bench, that I have received an appeal from the Ukrainian Medical Association of the United Kingdom regarding the nearly 400 people who still require urgent medical treatment as a result of the suffering they experienced in Maidan. If Britain could provide specialist treatment to some of them, as other countries are doing, that would be another way to show our commitment to helping the people of Ukraine.
It is the Russian intervention that we are rightly focusing on this afternoon. The Foreign Secretary made it very clear that there is no justification in international law for the actions of the Russians. They are in breach of all agreements, but in particular they are in breach of the Budapest memorandum. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made the powerful point that the Budapest memorandum was signed because the Ukrainians gave up a nuclear arsenal equivalent to that of France, America and China combined in return for guarantees. The fact that that can just be swept away is a very dangerous message for other countries that we might hope are also now amenable to the idea of giving up their nuclear weapons. It is essential that we protect the Ukrainian interest and defend the sovereignty of Ukraine.
There is a real danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) spelled out, that this might not be the end. The people of eastern Ukraine are being subjected to a constant diet of Russian propaganda on television about how the country has been taken over by Nazis and fascists and that they are at risk. The BBC World Service correspondent told us that his own grandfather, who is a resident of Kharkiv in eastern Ukraine, had said to him that he did not dare leave his house because he was so terrified that he would get murdered by these fascists who had taken over the country. The correspondent said, “That’s completely untrue. There is no evidence of that at all. Why do you think that?” He said, “Because that is what I am hearing on the television every single day.”
The response so far has not been strong enough. I welcome the measures announced, but the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is absolutely right that we need to do more. Economic and trade sanctions are probably the most powerful things. One of the most powerful messages delivered to President Putin that I have heard about is that from the chief executive of BlackRock, who apparently rang him and said, “Do you realise there will be no further investment by western countries into Russia if you continue down this course?”
We have considerable economic leverage over Russia and we must use it. It may be that there will be a small cost attached to it and the City of London might lose some trade and some companies might lose some contracts, but, frankly, that is a small price to pay compared with the price we potentially face paying if we do not send a very clear message that this is unacceptable and that we will stand up against it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to speak in this important debate about the very serious situation in Crimea and Ukraine.
The whole House is agreed that the events of the past two weeks have gone in completely the wrong direction and that what we want to see is the peaceful democratic development of Ukraine. We all know that conflict will set that back. If this crisis is not to escalate, we need to concentrate on bringing down the temperature, but securing Russian participation in meaningful talks about the future will be difficult.
It is clear that a vote with transparent ballot boxes and no international monitors does not reach the required standard for a free choice for Crimean people. When he winds up the debate, will the Leader of the House explain whether we are going to stick with our position on the overriding importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, or are we going to discuss what we believe would be a free and fair plebiscite?
As the Foreign Secretary has said, Ukraine should not have to choose between Russia and the EU. It is quite clear that the Russians feel they have a great deal at stake. Their major—possibly the major—concern is the warm-water location of the Black sea fleet. Will the Leader of the House explain how it could be maintained were Ukraine to join NATO?
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)? My real worry is that the Crimean peninsula is isolated and that the Russians require land access to it, which means coming through eastern Ukraine.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman, whose military expertise goes far beyond mine, makes a very useful point.
As we have previously discussed in the House, we need to look at the behaviour of the new Government in Kiev. The under-representation of Russian speakers from the east and the appointment of two oligarchs as governors of eastern regions does not look inclusive.
When I was in Ukraine a couple of years ago, it was absolutely clear that weak institutional arrangements had been further sapped by a weak political culture and an undeveloped civil society. Virtually every senior politician was supported by an oligarch—unless they had become one themselves—and it was very unclear who controlled whom.
I was therefore extremely concerned to receive e-mails from human rights activists in Ukraine who claimed that British parliamentarians had received money from Dmitry Firtash, a major Ukrainian oligarch. He owns 45% of the Ukrainian gas transit company, which controls Gazprom’s supplies through Ukraine to Europe, and he also owns a major chemical industry in the country. Mr Firtash is estimated to be worth between $600 million and $5 billion. He has been linked to President Yanukovych and even to President Putin.
When I raised the possibility of conflicts of interest with the Foreign Secretary on 4 March, he described my question as “utterly baseless” and “ridiculous in the extreme”. Since then, in an episode described by one analyst to the Financial Times as “seismic”, Mr Firtash has been arrested in Vienna by the Austrian organised crime unit, following a seven-year investigation by the FBI.
We have also learned that Mr Firtash had a meeting at the Foreign Office on 24 February. I hope that the Leader of the House, who will wind up the debate, can tell us whom Mr Firtash met, what was discussed and whether the issue of sanctions or asset freezes was on the agenda. On the same day, the Foreign Secretary said in the House that he wanted to see an “end to pervasive corruption” in Ukraine. We all agree with that, but I notice that Mr Firtash is not at the moment on the sanctions list issued by the EU.
Even the most cursory glance through the Electoral Commission website reveals that in recent years the Conservative party, in various guises, has received nearly £200,000 from associates of Mr Firtash. The Harlow Conservative party has received £40,000 from Mr Shetler-Jones, who was the chief executive officer of Mr Firtash’s holding company, Group DF. Mr Shetler-Jones has given money in his own name and via a company called Scythian, which he owns and of which he is a director.
Earlier in the Parliament, Baroness Neville-Jones was refused the post of National Security Adviser because of her links to Ukrainian oligarchs. She, too, has received money from Mr Shetler-Jones. During the previous Parliament, the Electoral Commission looked into whether Scythian was an active company, but it has not published its findings. It is apparently a consultancy that advises on energy matters, but it is not clear who its clients are.
That is not only a concern in this country but a serious problem from the perspective of Ukraine. Ukraine has lost the equivalent of almost half its annual GDP to outflows into offshore accounts during the past three years. The all-party group on anti-corruption says that a proportion of those funds have been laundered through the UK, that this is a clear example of the damaging role UK companies and individuals play in aiding foreign corrupt officials, and that assets should be identified, frozen and returned without delay. The Foreign Secretary has said that he is working on Ukrainian asset recovery, and I hope that the Government will take a no-holds-barred approach.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
I do not need to repeat the profiling of President Putin that, like the problems, was completely and comprehensively set out by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but the real challenge at the heart of the issue is how to respond. We could of course do lots of huffing and puffing. There has been plenty of that during the past few years, which is one reason why Mr Putin has felt that he can carry on with impunity.
The most traditional route is that of sanctions. Although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), I am afraid that I am slightly cynical about whether we will in the end get to a stage at which sanctions are robust enough to make a difference. The view at large is that sanctions are somehow pain-free, being effective at only one end, but major sanctions usually end up also affecting the people who put them in place. It will take real courage on behalf of the Germans, for example, to push for something in an area such as gas.
There is also the military way to respond. The Foreign Secretary, like many other countries, has been absolutely adamant that a military response is not on the table. I recognise that it is not a political solution or one that would help the situation, but we should not entirely rule out some form of military assistance or aid to the Ukrainian forces, who are equipped with obsolete and rather poor equipment. They are standing guard against the Russian bear almost as a Dad’s Army force at the moment. Russia never hesitates to help Syria with the latest weapons systems when trying to undermine the United Nations or, indeed, the international community. At the very least, expertise in military hospitals should be given to help people who are already suffering.
Bob Stewart
I think that we should reinforce the troops in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, because they are on the front line.
Mr Wallace
I think that the real thing we must deal with here and now is Ukraine. We must make sure that Ukrainian people have the ability to defend themselves should the Russians overstep the mark.
The long-term solution is of course through economics. It is important to resolve the EU-US free trade treaty to make Mr Putin feel what isolation is like, and to help Europe come to terms with its apparent energy dependency on Russia, which only makes it more and more vulnerable to a man who has proved time and again that he uses energy as a weapon.
There does not always have to be a hot war or a high -stakes conflict for us to face each other down. How quickly we rushed to forget the lessons of the cold war and sought to retire members of the intelligence agencies who were put out to grass when it ended in 1990-91. Let us remember that intelligence agencies around the world helped to change the behaviour of the Soviet Union and to make it collapse from within. Not a month now goes by without people denigrating our intelligence community —most recently thanks to Mr Snowden, who is now enjoying the hospitality of Mr Putin, and there is an irony in that—but they largely understand the Russian bear, know what makes Mr Putin vulnerable and know how to turn up the heat.
Let us remember that the source of Mr Putin’s power is the secret state, in which he can imprison people without trial, and in which he can persecute homosexuals and non-governmental organisations in the Russian state. He gets his power from manipulation, intimidation and corruption, but that is where he is vulnerable. If we can deter and deny him the ability to use that state within Russia and further afield, we can weaken him, and in doing so we can certainly deter him in future.
Let us unleash our intelligence services and capability. Let us no longer be afraid to hide them and run away from the accusations of Snowden. Let us make life a little more uncomfortable for Mr Putin. Let him feel what it is like on the other end of his intimidation in the secret state. Let us not put him in a cold war, but let him feel the cold winds of isolation that we can bring about if we isolate him economically, isolate him militarily and isolate him in his ability to break international law around the world. One cannot be a major player, riding bareback on a horse, if one is isolated from the international stage.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that, with immediate effect, I have to reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome this timely debate. I think everyone acknowledges the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine and the tensions that have followed Russia’s desire to annex Crimea from the rest of Ukraine. President Putin has swiftly signed a decree to recognise Crimea as a sovereign state—a move that paves the way for Crimea to join the Russian Federation.
I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in this matter. Sadly, we continue to witness the escalation of the crisis and defiance from the Russian President. It is clear that the US, the EU and the new Ukrainian Government do not recognise the referendum. The acting President of Ukraine has vowed:
“We are ready for negotiations, but we will never resign ourselves to the annexation of our land”.
The military threat to Ukraine is real and there is no legitimacy in the action that has been taken by Russia. What we have seen is the bully-boy tactics of someone who feels that he can walk over international law and hold the rest of the world to ransom. The referendum was held at a time when armed soldiers from Russia had invaded another sovereign, independent country. There was 10 days’ notice of the referendum, which is a mockery of the democratic process. There is no escaping the fact that Putin’s action was a blatant violation of territorial sovereignty. No one can ignore that. The referendum might satisfy Russia and its pro-Russian friends in Crimea, but no democratic country can take the referendum seriously.
What should we do in response? Sadly, over the years, the west has not had the courage to stand up to Russian aggression, in the hope that Putin would somehow decide to conduct himself in accordance with international norms. What will stop Russia from using its military muscle in other neighbouring countries? The decision by the EU and the US to impose sanctions on selected Russian and Ukrainian officials is but a limited response to Russian aggression. Isolating her is one thing; confronting her is something else. How can we make Russia respect international law and ensure that further incursions by Russian troops into Ukraine or other neighbouring countries do not happen?
Dialogue and engagement have been spoken about today. Dialogue and engagement have taken place with Russia over many years, but they have failed to stop Russian aggression. How can we ensure that we will succeed in our dialogue and engagement now? I believe that we need to encourage the Foreign Secretary to encourage his international partners to agree to the immediate suspension of Russia’s membership of the G8. We need the imposition of financial sanctions and the freezing of assets. In other words, we must make Russia feel the impact and pain of its actions. Words of condemnation are not enough. Actions will speak louder than words. We must demonstrate resolve and prove that aggression will not succeed. We hope for a diplomatic solution, but we must prepare for what will happen if diplomacy fails.
I believe that Putin is putting it up to the west. We are in danger of looking weak, as he presents himself as the strong man of Europe.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to put it back up to Russia, we must be able to defend what we say with equally strong actions? Therefore, what we put back up must be sustainable and accurate.
Dr McCrea
I want to conclude, because I realise the restriction on time, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. There is no use putting it back up to Putin if we do not carry through our actions. Our actions will speak louder than our words. We must remember that what has happened in the past has not made Putin back down. We must therefore think through our actions carefully. We must work with our international partners to ensure that our plan will succeed on behalf of Ukrainian citizens and other neighbouring countries that are threatened by Russia.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea). This has been a thoroughly constructive debate and there has been a great deal of unanimity across the House about the danger that the situation presents.
The parallels between what Hitler did in Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939 and what Putin and the Soviet Federation are doing today are prescient. In 1939, Hitler walked into Czechoslovakia on the pretence of protecting German speakers. He manipulated the media, just as Putin is doing today by shutting off some of the Ukrainian media, manipulating the Russian media in east Ukraine and pretending that Russian citizens have something to fear from the transitional Government. After all, they are only a transitional Government. With proper negotiations, there could have been a democratically elected Government for whom every part of Ukraine had an opportunity to vote.
We have to be very clear to Putin, who is a bully and a really tough man, that the west will not just stand by and watch him annex the weak parts of the former Soviet Union. I pointed out in an intervention that the Speaker of the Transnistrian Parliament in Moldova has written to the Speaker of the Duma today to say that Transnistria should become part of the Russian Federation. That was no doubt orchestrated by Russia. Russia has done other bits of stirring in Moldova. The Gagauz community in the south-west of Moldova is nothing to do with Russia and is a Christian enclave, but it has been stirred up to oppose the good non-Russian Government in Moldova. I do not think that we should stand by if President Putin makes further moves—and if he makes further moves into east Ukraine, the Ukrainians will fight. There will therefore be a very serious situation if he goes much further.
The west must show clear resolve, as a number of speakers have said, not least my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). We need to be absolutely united in our economic voice. That will mean many nations making economic sacrifices. If we had taken tough measures in the mid-1930s, despite the economic downturn, the second world war, and its initiation, in particular, might have been very different.
I urge the Foreign Secretary and his team to do all they can to show leadership in Europe and to ensure that Europe is heard to be speaking with one voice. This is not the time to be soft-hearted and to oppose economic sanctions, visa bans and so on. We must speak with one voice and we must be prepared to take economic sanctions. We must all act in concert—Europe, America and the other front-line states that have influence in this matter, such as Turkey. We must all take part in one diplomatic initiative, because if we fail to make our clear voice heard by Putin now, goodness knows where we might end up.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
The solidarity and unity in this debate have been heartening.
Too many people in this country and among our allies have been wandering aimlessly towards the teeth of the Russian bear, either as direct economic appeasers or because they do not want to think about nasty things going on in the extremities of our continent. However, the invasion of sovereign territory and the deprivation of human rights, including through the closing down of media, mob rule, bullying and the ignoring of minority concerns, are happening in Europe. We in the west need to wake up from our post-cold war dream of so-called peace dividends, our tiredness of conflict, our yearning for an end to austerity and other such pleasant thoughts, and face up to the new reality.
The reality of Putin’s Russia is not a pretty one. It is a regime that has no respect for international rules and conventions. It is a regime that has no morality in the western sense and that feeds on a diet of brute political strength and money—much of it stolen, in one way or another, from its own people. We apply our morality to Russian intransigence, and Putin and his henchmen laugh at us and just see weakness. They see a split Europe that is afraid to rock the economic boat and a US President who will do anything he can to avoid foreign policy distractions.
In Russia itself, human rights are little more than an afterthought. I hear now that extreme web and blog restrictions are being put in place. History has shown time and again that brutal dictators cannot be appeased. I recently spoke to a former Latvian Minister, and I hear from other countries surrounding Russia of their fear of what might happen as they count the numbers of ethnic Russians within their own borders.
I recently reread Winston Churchill’s speech in this place after the Munich conference, on 5 October 1938, and I commend it to hon. Members. The similarities between Crimea and the Sudetenland—a brutal power marching into a neighbour on the pretence of saving its own ethnic peoples—are chilling. At that time, Churchill remarked:
“I have always held the view that the maintenance of peace depends upon the accumulation of deterrents against the aggressor, coupled with a sincere effort to redress grievances.”—[Official Report, 5 October 1938; Vol. 339, c. 362.]
How apposite are those words now, and how well we would do to heed them.
The difference then was in the remedy. Churchill called for immediate rearmament, and although NATO will clearly need to reassure its ex-eastern bloc members of our article 5 obligations, it is not war that we now face immediately, although it would be remiss of the Government not to review alternatives, including reactive military ones. The current situation is more about affecting Russia where it cares most, and that is money. Yes, Putin has reignited Russian nationalism, but his political base, and that of his kleptocratic regime, is all governed by money, and mainly oil money at that. Thieves need access to their ill-gotten gains, and in the case of Russia, that means properties in Chelsea and the south of France, children in English schools, boats in the Med and wives in Bond street and rue Saint-Honoré. My feeling is that the kleptocracy will implode quicker if we stop that access than if we send in 50 divisions or move new nuclear weapons to the Polish border.
Yesterday’s EU travel ban and asset freeze on 21 officials from Russia and Ukraine is a weak and half-hearted negation of responsibility by the EU of which we should be ashamed. We should head the list of those sanctioned with Putin and his acolytes and work downwards to include all Russians. Even if the intention is to ratchet up sanctions, we should have been clearer about the implications of Russia annexing Crimea. We should remove Russia from the G8 and the Council of Europe. If it wants to behave as a 19th-century bully, why should it be allowed to G8 meetings? Tough sanctions should be put in place, along the lines of those on Iran, and Russian banks should be excluded from our financial system. Some seem to be saying that we have too much to lose if Russia retaliates. That is nonsense; I disagree.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who made a passionate case for a robust response.
We must realise that for Putin, the cold war has not ended. We have not come to a new resolution or settlement about borders; instead, he is passionately trying to readjust the borders and then fight again to ensure that Russia becomes what he sees as dominant right across eastern Europe and into the Caucasus and central Asia.
I have worked in Georgia and felt the deep, dark shadow of Russia over everything that is done in politics and economics. Sometimes it makes the citizens of Georgia feel that they have a short leasehold rather than a freehold over their own borders. On that basis, Putin has already succeeded in what is probably his first objective, which is about not just Crimea but the total shake-up of identity in the region. He has polarised Russian nationals across the former Soviet Union, destabilising the Caucasus, the Baltics and now the Balkans, and he has won an important battle—removing the confidence of citizens there in their current borders.
It is important, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, that we are robust on political and economic sanctions. However, we must also consider offering carrots. Where is our Marshall plan for Ukraine, to kick-start and modernise its economy and say that a modern, non-Russian-dominated Ukraine is a positive and important place to be? Where is our support for Russian speakers and Russian nationals who do not live in Russia? They are free Russians, and we should celebrate them. We should ensure that being a free Russian is seen as something of great value, and that they can counter the problems of Russians whose internet is being taken over, whose communications are being closed down and whose newspapers are being dominated by central Politburo-type mechanisms. We have to value the things that Russians outside the border have.
There is another economic element of the matter that we should examine, which is Cyprus. It is the centre of second-tier Russian investment, beyond those who have penthouses in London. The banking structure and real estate in Cyprus are greatly dominated by Russian investment. If we and the Cypriots can bear down on Russia with effective sanctions, ensuring that investments and current deposits are frozen, we will be in a position to shake Putin where it matters, through the people around him. They are the people with the money, who feel threatened by the destabilisation that the current President of Russia is creating not just for Russia but for the rest of us in Europe.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I apologise to the House for not having been present for the whole debate—I was speaking in Westminster Hall—and as a consequence, I shall be brief.
The more complex a situation, the clearer we should be about what is in our national interest. The sovereignty of states must be respected and the right to self-determination must be upheld in Ukraine, as it must in Moldova, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere. Ukraine must continue to develop to become a stable democracy, free from corruption, and its economy must develop too. NATO members must have confidence that the alliance will protect their sovereignty and interests, and international law must be upheld. It is directly in the UK’s national interests that those things are so, so what actions and inactions follow from those objectives?
First, we must support Ukraine economically and politically and allow its civic development. Secondly, Ukraine must lead the response to developments in Crimea. Thirdly, we must not recognise the result of the referendum as legitimate. Whatever the outcome of a further ballot, should it happen, Putin and Russia must face the repercussions of their actions. No one disputes that Russia has an interest in the future of the Crimean peninsula, but in response to events in Kiev and Crimea, Putin pursued not legal diplomacy but illegal aggression. It was only because of Ukraine’s restraint and the cool-headedness of her troops that we did not have bloodshed.
Sanctions must be proportionate to Russia’s actions and must be escalated if she continues to pursue the same policy, and we must lend our support to the Ukrainian Government if they wish to prevent Russia from gaining a deep hold on Crimea through banking, technology, political and civil structures and the military. We must also ensure that the situation in Crimea is properly observed and reported on.
I am sure that many Members who have spoken in the debate have touched on the failure of British and EU foreign policy to prevent the current situation from arising, and perhaps even suggested that it has exacerbated it. I might agree with some of those sentiments, but today I will constrain myself to saying that we must learn from the situation. We must work with the EU, the US and others to present Russia with compelling reasons to stop the hostilities. However, a lack of consensus should not prevent the United Kingdom from defending her interests vigorously. Russia should be in no doubt that by taking the steps she has in the past few weeks, she has damaged her interests in the extreme, and she should know that we will defend our own.
The situation will not be easily or swiftly resolved, but Britain should commit to the process for the long term. We may have been slow getting out of the blocks, or perhaps we were not even at the starting line when the gun was fired, but we must catch up. The message from the House today must be that we are determined to do so.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt).
Two years ago this month, the House called for a UK Magnitsky law, inspired by dissident Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death and posthumously prosecuted on orders from the Kremlin for disclosing the biggest tax fraud in Russian history.
The Magnitsky law is relevant today because it would create a presumption of near automatic UK visa bans and asset freezes for individuals where there is concrete evidence that they had a role in torture or other gross human rights abuses. It should apply not just to Russia but more generally, and it could be used to impose sanctions on those involved in other egregious violations of international law, such as the unlawful use of force that Russia is bullying Ukraine with.
Why should we care about the violation of such basic rules of international life hundreds of miles away? Do we want to become a safe haven for international outlaws—the mafia bosses, the despots and their fixers? Do we want London to be the safety deposit box for their dirty money? The answer from this House must be no. We should ban those crooks and bullies as a matter of course, and prevent them from siphoning their illicit gains through London or British companies.
The Government already have power to impose visa bans and asset freezes, but that power is underused and, frankly, lacks transparency. If someone is deported or extradited from this country, there is a major public debate and huge transparency, yet there is a veil of secrecy over visa bans and the decision-making process concerning them. We still do not know whether any of those linked to the Magnitsky case had been to Britain either around that time or have been since. Likewise, the Serious Fraud Office and HMRC were passed evidence about the criminal money from the Magnitsky cases and links to Britain, but they did precious little.
The links between the Magnitsky case and the current crisis in Ukraine are palpable. There is evidence that three companies cited in documents recovered from Yanukovych’s presidential palace are registered in the UK: Navimax Ventures, Roadfield Capital LLP, and Fineroad Business LLP are holding some of those assets, and it is striking that all three share the same UK address, offshore shell companies, and directors as companies linked to the Magnitsky case. Further reports suggest that Yanukovych used British shell companies to finance the construction of various properties, including the presidential palace, which is part-owned by a UK-registered firm named Blythe (Europe) Ltd. Many of those siphoning their money through Britain are also directly connected to Putin himself, as others have said.
The wider point is that after Iraq and Afghanistan, this country has, in the words of US President John Quincy Adams, grown wary of going abroad
“in search of monsters to destroy”.
The public’s appetite for serving as the world’s policeman is unlikely to return, yet from the Arab spring, through Putin’s Russia to China, we are likely to face more and more cases of serious violations of international law, where the international response is divided, where there is no domestic appetite for military action, and where wholesale economic sanctions may be too blunt a tool. We need better tools for targeted financial sanctions that apply a direct cost to the worst violations of the cardinal rules of international law, whether torture in the Magnitsky case or military aggression in Crimea. The Magnitsky model offers that accountability, a way to deter those who bankroll the likes of Putin, and a pressure point to hit despots where it hurts.
We may not be the world’s policeman, but that does not mean we should let the henchmen of despots or dictators waltz into this country, buy up property, send their kids to school here and enjoy a very British veneer of respectability, as if their outrages back home had never happened.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) quoted John Quincy Adams who famously warned against his country going out seeking “monsters to destroy”.
I declare an interest: I have been interested in Russian culture and history ever since my Russian Orthodox wedding to my Russian Orthodox wife. I have visited Kiev, and I want to explain to the House how important Ukraine is to the Russian people. In our island, secure as we are, we sometimes do not understand the importance of history and of fear, and of the great fear of the Russian people. I am neither pro-Russian nor pro-Ukrainian, because I am also sympathetic to Ukrainians living in western Ukraine who are Catholic Uniates, and I understand the divisions of that country.
History is everything. My wife’s grandmother escaped through Crimea in 1918, and her first husband was dragged out of the woods and shot by Bolsheviks, simply because of his name and title. The Russian people—this is seared into their soul—went through the most appalling suffering during the second world war, not least in Crimea. When one goes to Kiev, as I have done, and walks around the Russian Orthodox cathedrals, one understands the Kievan Rus’, which was founded 1,000 years ago. Ukraine is not just some settlement. I am not apologising or being an apologist for Putin or what he has done; I am just trying to explain to the House how importantly Russians feel about the future of Ukraine, and how sensitive we must be to their sensibilities. That particularly applies to Crimea, which has been Russian since the time of Catherine the Great, and Russian speakers are the dominant part of the population. I know that the Tatars have been treated appallingly, but—again, the House will not like what I say—many Russians believe that some elements of the Tatar population collaborated with what they call the fascist invaders.
Angela Smith
We must remember that Finland, too, was occupied by Russia for a considerable period. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Russians have an affinity with Finland that perhaps gives Russia the right to think about what to do in a place like Finland? It still holds some Finnish territory.
Sir Edward Leigh
No, of course I do not. Finland was also occupied by Sweden, but there is no time to debate that. Ukraine is a completely different ball game to Russians than Poland. My point is that Ukraine is an extraordinarily divided country. This is not a simple, liberal argument about a long-standing independent united country and a foreign aggressor. Western Ukraine is fiercely anti-Russian. As I said, it is Catholic Uniate, its capital city is Lviv, and formerly it was largely inhabited not by Ukrainians but 80% by Poles who were forcibly removed by Stalin. Before that it was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and was called Lemberg. The whole of western Ukraine is therefore passionately opposed to Russia—quite understandably—and wants to break free.
The eastern part of the country around Donetsk and Crimea is a completely different state of affairs. We must be aware that however many speeches we give, and however many sanctions we impose, this is not just about a tyrant—Putin—invading a foreign country. A great proportion of the Russian population feels very strongly that the west is imposing double standards. The west insisted on self-determination for the Kosovans, and Serbia is very close to the Russian heart as a fellow Orthodox country. The House may not agree with that, but that is their point of view, and imposing any amount of sanctions will not change it.
We must stop playing power games. It is too dangerous a situation, and the west must realise that it cannot tear Ukraine away from Russia. We must stop these games of Ukraine ever joining NATO—thank God Ukraine is not in NATO because we would be involved in a war. We must stop these games.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend said yesterday in Defence questions what a different position we would be in had we let Ukraine become part of NATO. We must realise and impress on Russia that membership of NATO involves the criterion that an attack on one is an attack on all. If we are not prepared to protect a country in that way, we must not give it bogus guarantees.
Sir Edward Leigh
I must finish shortly as others want to get in.
An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them. Poland is a completely different state of affairs from Ukraine. As I have said, we must stop the power games of trying to detach Ukraine from Russia. It is not going to happen. Russia will not allow it to happen, any more than we would allow an integral part of what we consider to be important to our soul and our history to be detached from us. It is a dangerous game—[Interruption.] Well, somebody has to give an alternative point of view. There is no point in the House of Commons if we all agree with each other all the time. I am trying to explain the Russian point of view.
Encouraging Ukraine to join NATO is obviously absurd, but it is also extraordinarily dangerous to encourage Ukraine to join the EU. As I said, I am neither pro-Russia nor pro-Ukraine, and I am in favour—this may be a cliché—of peace and humanity. I want Ukraine to have a devolved system of administration so that the west can run itself, as can the east. Ideally if we can think in terms of free-trade areas and Ukraine having some sort of free-trade agreement with the EU, that is positive, sensible and acceptable to Russians. However, we should please not take any step further, because we will be indulging in extraordinarily dangerous power games.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). His analysis of history is extraordinarily interesting, but of course in this House we must confront the political realities that exist as a consequence of an aggressive Russia. This is where we are and that is what we must do.
We need to recognise two or three things. First, President Putin is obsessed with energy and control. He is also, as has been noted already in this House, a bully who is bullying from a weak-ish position. We must recognise the dangers of that, because it is dangerous for weak people to get into difficult situations. Secondly, Russia is in effect becoming disconnected from the international world, and we cannot afford for that to happen. All our actions must be couched in terms of a tough approach, while considering what we must do in the long run to ensure that Russia returns as part of a proper international environment.
We have to bear in mind what is really happening in Ukraine. This whole business drives a coach and horses through self-determination and we cannot accept that. An unstable situation has been created in an area that ought to be promoting and enjoying economic growth. Anybody who thinks it is not in Britain’s interests to have a stable Ukraine and a stable wider region is wrong, and we have to express that in those terms. There is also the question of how Ukrainians have behaved. As has already been said, there is no evidence of inappropriate actions against Russian speakers, either in Crimea or elsewhere.
What can we do? We have to think about the next steps. The great problem is that this situation is part of a pattern of behaviour exhibited by the Russian political system which has to be stopped in its tracks. We have talked about energy, which is key to President Putin’s thinking and should be key to our solution. The EU has a huge opportunity to hang together and demonstrate how it can promote meaningful action against the Russian state. We must ensure that our energy policy is diverse and less reliant on Russia. We cannot allow one European state, or other European states, to be picked off. We cannot invite European states to take actions that are detrimental to themselves, without seeing support from the European Union. The challenge for the EU is twofold: to express an energy policy that gives comfort to all member states, and to recognise the importance of having an energy policy that makes it possible for Europe to act in unison.
It is important to ensure that Europe acts together immediately in a forceful way to prevent a repetition of this situation and to act firmly as a matter of urgency. I am pleased with the overall feeling of the House. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and I endorse what the shadow Foreign Secretary has said.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
We have had a short but timely debate, with a remarkable degree of agreement among Members on both sides of the House about what we are facing. The crisis in Crimea represents the most significant threat to security on the European continent in decades. The Foreign Secretary made that point when he visited Kiev earlier this month, and he made it again in his contribution at the start of the debate.
The Russian Government are riding roughshod over Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. They are in breach of international law and their own treaty obligations. The annexation of Crimea, after an illegitimate and unconstitutional referendum, makes that crisis much worse. It is right that the international community, and indeed members of this House, speak almost completely with one voice on this grave violation of international law and norms. Our priority now must be to avoid the possibility of a further military escalation. The UK must continue to urge a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and that is what the Foreign Secretary is doing.
We welcome the targeted measures announced in Brussels yesterday by the United States and the EU, including measures aimed directly at those responsible for the military incursion into Crimea. Overwhelmingly, speaker after speaker in the debate has pointed out that the measures are not nearly adequate enough, given the developing situation. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) called the sanctions “pathetic and feeble” in his contribution. We heard, with some relief, that the Government have determined on a series of escalations should Russia not desist from its current activity and behaviour. We would, however, like the Leader of the House—as far as he is able—to clarify the Government’s thinking on that escalation. Many hon. Members called for economic sanctions, up to and including trade sanctions. There have been many comments from Members in all parts of the House suggesting that hitting the oligarchs in their pockets to affect their ability to take their wealth across borders is the only measure likely to work. We have to be clear that if Russia wants to stay as a member of the international community it must change course. EU leaders should set a clear timetable for that change in the next few days. Perhaps we will see that emerge from the meetings towards the end of the week.
Labour Members are clear that we need a graduating hierarchy of diplomatic and economic trade measures to leave Russia in no doubt that more penalties will come if it does not start to listen and change its behaviour, and that there will be real consequences for its continued aggressive stance. Russia’s action is a flagrant abuse of international law. As many right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, this is a test of the west’s resolve in upholding the values and laws that unite us. The United Kingdom, as the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), both said, has a particular responsibility to fulfil its role as an upholder of international law, the UN charter and a rule-based system of international relations. The penalties announced yesterday are a step in the right direction, but we have to ensure that that resolve improves and strengthens, rather than diminishes, in the coming weeks.
We know that Russia is acting out of weakness. Many Members—for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)—have said that sanctions need to go further. He was not the only Member who mentioned the Magnitsky Act, which hits oligarchies and elites where they are particularly vulnerable. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) made a similar point about standing up to bullies, and the hon. Members for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) did likewise.
There has been remarkable agreement across the House about the importance of ensuring that we can not only take action in concert with our allies, but perhaps take other actions ourselves, as a country with one of the largest financial centres in the world. We may well be able to make a particular difference by means of asset freezes that would hit the oligarchs where it particularly hurts. I should be interested to hear the Leader of the House’s view of the Government’s ability and willingness to impose sanctions that would have that effect, both in concert with our allies and unilaterally.
The Foreign Secretary gave some indications that there were other possibilities in the Government’s mind, such as a unilateral suspension of military co-operation with the Russian regime. He was inevitably coy—and I understand why he might want to be—about the precise form that some of the sanctions would take, but I think that Members would appreciate some indication from the Leader of the House that the Government will not rule out any such actions, both unilateral and in concert with our allies, as the weeks go on. Our Government have been working with their allies, and we must work together as a country, and as an international community, to avoid any further military escalation. We must also continue to pursue a diplomatic strategy in order to achieve that.
Let me ask the Leader of the House some questions. What is the Government’s thinking on the establishment of a Russia-Ukraine contact group? What is their view on the escalation of sanctions, including a move to economic and trade sanctions, and will they agree to consider some of those sanctions with respect to the City of London as well as in concert with our allies? What is their view on the access of oligarchs to London’s financial markets? I hope that the Leader of the House will also be able to say something about the G8 and Russia’s membership of the World Trade Organisation, and about any other measures that the Government may be considering.
It is good that the House is speaking with one voice about this very important matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to enlighten us.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am also grateful to other Members, including the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who welcomed the debate. As I told the House yesterday, we will continue to update it—as my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have done—and to consider the need for further debate on what are clearly fast-moving events.
As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, the crisis in Ukraine is the most serious test of European security in the 21st century thus far. We have a vital interest to uphold: we want to see a stable, prosperous and unified Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is clear that Russia’s actions in Crimea have trampled over fundamental principles of international law, that they threaten the future of Ukraine, and that they have cast a deep shadow over European security and stability.
The events of recent weeks have provoked frustration and anger throughout the international community—sentiments that have rightly been reflected in today’s debate. I am grateful to all the Members who have given us the benefit of their experience and views. I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) a sense of the solidarity that has been displayed today. I hope that that solidarity will be communicated, along with the agreement that we have observed not only between the principal parties in the House, but among Back Benchers who have expressed strong views, strongly held, which I hope will be understood and listened to.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), expressed welcome support for the steps that the Government were taking, and made it clear that he favoured the toughest possible sanctions. The shadow Leader of the House asked about sanctions, and I can tell her that the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is looking for the strongest set of measures that can be negotiated and agreed. As the shadow Foreign Secretary will appreciate, it is not possible to specify those at this stage, in advance of the European Council, but I think that what the Foreign Secretary said about the measures that have already been taken was important.
Many Members, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), rightly expressed—in some cases, very strongly—a sense of the inadequacy of sanctions thus far. At last week’s Council the Prime Minister secured a step-by-step strategy, the purpose of which was to de-escalate and deter; it was not to escalate sanctions. It was hoped that the response of the Russian Government in the course of the last weekend, and not least the meetings that took place here in London at the end of last week, might have led to that de-escalation and might have deterred the Russian Government, but I think they must be aware now, and will be even more aware after the European Council and the steps our international partners take, that their failure to de-escalate the situation and their proceeding in the way they have will lead to far-reaching consequences.
Mr Lansley
I will not give way: Members must forgive me, as I have only three minutes to respond to the debate.
The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the G8. We have agreed to suspend further planning for a G8 summit in Sochi this summer. I can also tell the House that we have endorsed the United States’ proposal that the G7 will meet in the margins of the nuclear security summit in The Hague early next week and that the March European Council will take a decision on the EU-Russia summit later this week. It is, I think, clear that it cannot be business as usual between the EU and Russia.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the contact group. Our main objective is to bring the Russian and Ukrainian Governments together to discuss finding a diplomatic solution to the current crisis and to de-escalate the situation. The UK and partners are happy to support and help facilitate such talks, but they must take place without prejudice to Crimea’s future status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) rightly said that in that sense the Russian proposal is entirely disingenuous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) talked of the interdependence of European countries with Russia. A number of Members rightly made the point that we are now in a position where, as we consider further economic and trade sanctions, there will be far-reaching costs and consequences for Russia, but there will also be a degree of sacrifice and pain to be taken on our part, and European countries must understand and accept that.
The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made a persuasive speech. Many Members rightly thoroughly endorsed her view that while we do not have to subscribe precisely to historical analogies, we must not allow aggression to go unanswered, we must not go down the route of appeasement, and we must make sure that that kind of use of force in contravention of international law and the sovereignty of nations is not allowed to succeed.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Exeter and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about the Magnitsky case. The Government have long called for a full and transparent investigation into the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We continue to raise the case with the Russian Government at all levels and make clear the importance of ensuring it is brought to a thorough and transparent conclusion. The UK does not intend to introduce a US-style Magnitsky list. We have a robust visa regime that enables us to deny entry to those who commit human rights abuses.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), made it clear that the Russian objective is to destabilise and control, but we should understand—the shadow Foreign Secretary was right—that this is coming from a position of weakness on the part of the Russian Government, not from a position of strength. That is why we must take a strong position in response and stand up to bullying behaviour.
Time does not permit me to respond more to other Members, but what is clear from this debate is that there is a determination among Members of this House to uphold international law and to take robust measures in response to flagrant breaches of international norms and international law by the Russian Government.
Mr Speaker
I think the Leader of the House has concluded his speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Ukraine.
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Two years ago, on 12 March 2012, this House unanimously agreed a motion calling on the Government to introduce precisely the kind of Magnitsky list that the Leader of the House just mentioned. At the time, the Government said they were not going to oppose the motion—indeed, those in the Government shouted “aye” along with the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who had introduced the motion. Yet despite it having been unanimously agreed, the Leader of the House has today, as far as I can understand it, reneged on that position. Far from being more robust with Russia, we are being less robust today than we were two years ago. Have I got that right?
Mr Speaker
Far be it from me to say whether anybody has reneged or not, although I note in passing that to renege, whether disagreeable, not least in this case to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is not unparliamentary—nothing unparliamentary has happened. He is a considerable expert in parliamentary procedure and has just written a two-volume tome on the history of Parliament. He may well be very dissatisfied, but he has vented his concerns and they are on the record.
Mr Speaker
Clearly the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is most agitated also to raise a point of order, and we had better hear from him.
Dr Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you noticed my eccentric gesticulations and today you note my great agitation. I think the point raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has wide ramifications, similar to those we were concerned about yesterday: what is the status of motions passed, either in substantive votes or nem. con. votes in this House, when they are the result of the Backbench Business Committee agreeing that something should be debated and voted on? There is something a bit wrong when the House passes a motion and the Government appear to take no notice of it. What is the point of having a vote in that case?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has opened veritably a can of parliamentary worms. The issue he raises is important, and I do not seek to brush it off for one moment, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair. What I say to him in all seriousness and solemnity, recognising that the concern he expresses is probably more widely shared, is that ultimately it is for the House to decide what is the meaning of a particular decision taken. That is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter for the House, and it is a point to which he and others can return if they so wish, but we cannot dilate upon it now. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda could if he were in order, but he is not and so he will not. We will leave it there for now.
Local Government: Combined Authority Orders
Mr Speaker
With the permission of the House, we will debate the combined authority orders together.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
I beg to move,
That the draft Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this we shall consider the following motions:
That the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
That the draft Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
That the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
Brandon Lewis
These orders, if approved, will bring about the establishment of combined authorities in three of our major metropolitan areas: across Merseyside and Liverpool; around Sheffield and South Yorkshire; and in West Yorkshire. In each of those areas the combined authority will be responsible for economic development and regeneration, and for transport. As all the councils in each area have agreed, their combined authority will be able to recognise and exercise their functions on economic development and regeneration. Their combined authority will also have the transport functions currently exercised by the area’s integrated transport authority, and that ITA will be abolished on the establishment of the combined authority.
Central to what we are considering today are two key priorities for this coalition Government: growth and localism. Achieving economic growth is essential to the recovery of our economy and rebuilding our future after the economic failures and spiralling of debt that we inherited when we took office in May 2010. It is through achieving economic growth that jobs are created, that incomes of hard-working families can grow and that we can build sustainable prosperity for communities across the country. The policies of this coalition Government are delivering, with unemployment now at just 7.2%; with increasing numbers of people in employment; with more women in work than ever before; and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor told the House in November, with growth then estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility at 1.4%.
An important element of our policies, as we made clear in our White Paper response to Lord Heseltine’s report on growth, is that local authorities have a vital role to play. Councils should put economic development at the heart of all that they do, collaborating with private sector partners and others across a functional economic area. A combined authority is a means for councils to undertake that collaboration, which will be the foundation of all that they do to promote economic growth. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of the proposed combined authorities has been recognised as key in the city deals that we have agreed with each area. If Parliament approves the draft orders, we expect those authorities to be equally key in any future growth deals with funding from the local growth fund.
Under our policy of localism, it is entirely up to councils whether they choose to collaborate through a combined authority or through some other arrangement. Our whole approach to combined authorities, which is reflected in the draft orders, is one of localism. When councils come forward with a proposal for a combined authority that commands wide local support, our policy is this. If we consider that the statutory conditions are met, we will invite Parliament to approve a draft order that provides for the establishment of the proposed combined authority, which will enable the councils concerned to give full effect to their ambitions for joint working.
Localism will guide our response to any proposals for changes to a combined authority after its establishment, such as if another council wishes to join the combined authority as a constituent council, or if a council that is a member of a combined authority wishes to leave. In any such case, our policy will be to seek parliamentary approval for a draft order that enables the change to be made, provided that we are clear that the change meets the statutory conditions.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The Minister is making the interesting argument that localism will be the principle that guides future decisions about the development of the combined authorities. Does that principle also apply to the devolution of further powers and responsibilities to combined authorities if they properly request such powers?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman’s question gets to the heart of the Localism Act 2011, which was about devolving power not only to local authorities but to local communities to empower people to get things done. If local authorities have further ideas about things that they want to do, I encourage them to come and talk to us. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) and I will be interested to talk to local authorities about what more we can do to empower them to develop economic growth and take their communities forward.
In each of the draft orders, we have considered the circumstances of the combined authority proposal that the councils have made, as the law requires, and we have concluded that it is right for us to pursue our localist policy in those cases. We have considered each proposal for a combined authority in the light of the statutory conditions set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, under which any combined authority is established. Those conditions are that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must consider that establishing the combined authority is likely to improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to transport in the area; improve the effectiveness and efficiency of transport in the area; improve the exercise of statutory functions relating to economic development and regeneration in the area; and improve the economic conditions in the area. We consider that those tests are unambiguously met in each case.
In short, each combined authority will bring together decision making on the closely interrelated issues of transport and economic development, and will provide for more efficient, effective, and transparent decision making by councils, with their partners, across the whole of the functional economic area they serve. We consider that it is right to establish those combined authorities, having regard, as the 2009 Act requires, to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government. Further, we are clear that in each of the areas, the combined authority will command wide local support.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
What consideration has been given to the impact on the communities that will be left behind when a local authority decides to get into bed with one of the new combined authorities?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making, but nobody will be left behind. Other areas will be able to form their own combined authorities and develop their own economic growth, and we would encourage them to do so. I think that he is referring directly to the situation in York, which does not form part of today’s discussions; that debate will follow at a later date. There will also be a consultation process, and the people and businesses in York, as well as the local enterprise partnership, the local authorities and the Members concerned, will obviously want to feed into that process their views on the effects of the proposals on York, and on the benefits or otherwise of York being part of a combined authority. I have made it clear that we will facilitate opportunities for areas such as York to join a combined authority later. We are also ensuring that a local authority will be able to step away from such an arrangement if it feels right for it to do so.
Julian Smith
I thank the Minister for that full response. When he and his Department consider any application by York to join the new West Yorkshire combined authority, I urge him to consider carefully the impact that that would have on constituencies such as mine in Skipton and Ripon and on other rural areas that rely on their relationship with York.
Brandon Lewis
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will give that matter our full consideration. One reason that the arrangements in York are not part of today’s orders is that we intend, before purdah, to lay the paperwork for a legislative reform order and to have a full consultation process, and I am sure that he and others will wish to feed into that process, offering views both for and against the proposals. Their views will be given full consideration.
We are clear that in each of these areas the combined authority would command good support from local businesses, from the local enterprise partnership, from other public bodies, from institutions such as the universities in the area and from local people and their democratically elected representatives. Accordingly, on the basis of our localist approach, we are seeking the approval of the House for these draft orders today—orders to which each of the constituent councils has consented. We are doing this on the basis of the information that we have about each proposed combined authority. That includes the governance reviews undertaken by the councils in each of the areas, as required by the 2009 Act if they are to propose a combined authority.
John Healey
I welcome the orders that have been placed before the House. The Minister described them a moment ago as “draft orders”. If they are draft orders, when will we get the actual orders? He rightly said earlier that the integrated transport authorities would be abolished on the day on which the orders are made. For the sake of clarity, will he therefore tell us whether the orders that he is asking the House to approve today are draft orders or the orders that will actually do the job that he has described?
Brandon Lewis
I think that there is an issue around wording here. They are draft orders until the House approves them. When that happens, they become the orders. I am asking Members to vote today on the orders, but they are technically draft orders until we approve them.
John Healey
I thank the Minister for that clarification. Will he therefore tell me the date on which the orders will come into force and on which the integrated transport authorities will effectively be abolished?
Brandon Lewis
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come back to him on that question later this afternoon.
Mr Howarth
The Minister is probably in a better position to know about this than I am, but I think that all these arrangements come into effect on 1 April.
Brandon Lewis
Yes, that is the intention. I was going to come to that in a few moments. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
As I was saying, we are doing this on the basis of the information that we have about each proposed combined authority. That also includes the results of the consultations we have undertaken for each of the proposed combined authorities—again, as required by the 2009 Act—as well as detailed proposals from each group of councils on how they wish their combined authority to operate, to take decisions and, most importantly, to be open, transparent and accountable. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and I share a view on that.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
On the question of transparency and openness, I note that the explanatory memorandum states:
“The Government has now provided in the Order that it is mandatory for the Combined Authority to have an overview and scrutiny committee which can be made up of members across the parties.”
In that context, would political representation on such a committee have to be mixed, or could there be representation by just one party, even in an area with very mixed political representation?
Brandon Lewis
I will touch on the make-up in a moment. It would be representative of the political representation across the combined authorities—so a mixed make-up.
Brandon Lewis
Yes, proportionally.
On the draft orders, three provide for the establishment of combined authorities across Greater Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Each of the three draft orders specifies the formal legal name of the combined authority to which all the councils concerned have consented. How that authority will brand itself, including the use of any brand name, will be entirely a matter for the combined authority.
The three draft orders also make provision for the abolition of the integrated transport authority for the area. They also set out the transport and economic functions of the combined authority and its membership and constitutional arrangements. Those constitutional arrangements include a requirement for there to be at least one overview and scrutiny committee, with a membership drawn from members of the councils concerned, to hold the combined authority to account. Good governance practice will mean that such committees will be politically balanced, enabling appropriate representation of councils’ minority parties in the governance of the combined authority.
The fourth draft order simply makes amendments to transport legislation, which are applicable to all combined authorities. The draft orders will come into force the day after they are made, and the intention is for that to be 31 March.
The draft orders, if approved, will open the way for the councils in each of the functional economic areas surrounding some of our greatest cities to deepen and intensify their collaborative joint working with each other and with public and private sector partners. By doing that, they will open the way to boosting economic growth in three of our major conurbations, increasing investment, and promoting more strongly and effectively the economic prosperity of those areas, which is something that we all want to see happen in our communities. I therefore commend these draft orders to the House.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the opportunity to debate these important statutory instruments, which will help local authorities in key areas of the country to work together more effectively in the interests of their communities. It is good to see so many Members here to participate in the debate and to share local perspectives on how to ensure that the combined authority areas can succeed.
Labour is broadly supportive of the statutory instruments. We note that they have the support of the local authorities in the areas concerned. Indeed there is clear evidence of support from the public, businesses and other partners in the areas. The authorities concerned are overwhelmingly Labour. Along with Greater Manchester, they are giving a lead to all of local government, and we are proud of them. Thanks to their committed and innovative leadership, those authorities are making a real difference and showing the way forward through a cost of living crisis created by this Government.
Julian Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman think that leadership was the reason the Labour-led York council played petty politics with the York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership last year—petty politics that have continued into this year? Such behaviour shows that the level of leadership in the council is really pretty depressing and low.
Andy Sawford
Well, I know petty politics when I see it, and the hon. Gentleman’s remarks sound very much like it. His remarks were inconsistent with his earlier comments about the importance of the partnership between the authorities that surround York. I will come on to the arrangements in that area of the country: I want to raise issues about York, which may interest the hon. Gentleman. Whether or not he will agree with me on them remains to be seen.
For economic success across the country, we must make the most of the strengths of different sectors across our country, and develop new skills and industries. Clearly, greater local collaboration and co-operation can produce much better results on issues such as transport, housing, employment, skills and training than can national programmes run from Whitehall. Combined authorities have a key role to play in that, as many councils believe that to deliver the best outcomes for their communities, the time has come to take current governance models to the next level, moving from informal collaboration to joint decision making on some issues.
There is an irony in the fact that the Government now recognise the value of combined authorities, which were first introduced in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, about which Government Members have been contemptuous both in opposition and in government. The Act made provision for the establishment of economic prosperity boards and for combined authorities. After some years of drift, during which the Government tore up the regional development agency structure in an act of economic vandalism at a time when our economy was beginning to recover from a global recession, Lord Heseltine’s much-trumpeted review in 2013 came up with the big idea of combined authorities. We welcome the Government’s conversion, however reluctant it is, but we regret the delay.
The new combined authorities will bring many benefits, including the strong and visible collective leadership of an area with democratic accountability and an influential and unified voice. That leadership will be able to have a single conversation with the Government, national agencies and business leaders and to align decision making and economic growth at a strategic level so that there is a single framework underpinned by a coherent strategy and investment programme. It will have the opportunity to draw together a range of funding sources, including EU funds—this has been a key issue in the recent interregnum, during which there has not been a clear strategy from central Government—and a devolved local growth fund. The combined authorities also create the opportunity for closer working across the public sector to integrate functions and services and provide innovative solutions to the challenges of reduced budgets, which particularly affect the authorities in the combined authority areas that have had an above-average cut in a deeply unfair funding settlement.
The Greater Manchester combined authority shows the benefit of the system: its achievements include the major refurbishment of Bolton and Rochdale railway stations; the revolving infrastructure fund, which is worth £30 million a year; permission for up to 7,000 new homes to be built by 2017; a programme of low-carbon measures; and overall savings of £11.7 million a year.
I recommend that all Members of the House read the excellent report recently published by Labour’s local government innovation taskforce, which includes many of the success stories of the Greater Manchester combined authority and local authority partnerships across the country. I firmly believe that the West Yorkshire combined authority, the South Yorkshire combined authority and the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral combined authority will succeed as Greater Manchester has. I also hope that the order will soon be tabled for the north-east combined authority.
The Association of North East Councils tells me that establishing a combined authority for the north-east, to put into legal form what the north-east leadership board has been doing by consent for some time, is widely supported. I hope that there can be progress.
Brandon Lewis
I can provide a piece of information to help the shadow Minister: that order was tabled on 13 March, so it will come to us for consideration shortly.
Andy Sawford
I thank the Minister for that clarification and we hope that the order will be before us soon. I understood that the conversation in that region between the local authorities had made substantial progress and that they were looking to move forward. The Opposition will support the establishment of the north-east combined authority when that is proposed, however it is named.
Today’s steps on combined authorities are welcome but still more can be done on additional freedoms. The Opposition are considering the case being made by organisations including the Local Government Association, the special interest group of municipal authorities, ANEC and other bodies for additional powers. We agree with them that there is a need for a clearer plan for sub-national government that, crucially, works for all areas of the country. There is a need for further consideration of what arrangements will work best in two-tier areas, for example. There needs to be further devolution of funding streams. The Opposition are committed to significant reform in that area: for example, we will give local authorities a strong role in co-commissioning the Work programme.
The new combined authorities are keen to have a dialogue with the Minister, as he is no doubt aware, about “earn back” schemes for their areas. Such a scheme has been a feature of the Greater Manchester combined authority. It will be useful to hear the Minister’s thoughts, and to hear about any progress that has been made with the three new combined authorities.
There is also the question of legal restrictions around the combined authorities’ ability to borrow for non-transport purposes. The authorities have argued that that will remove a significant barrier to the unlocking of local resources to support infrastructure and growth. That change has been strongly advocated by Greater Manchester. What is the Government’s view on that and how do they intend to respond? Are the Government prepared to consider the request for combined authorities to be able to recover VAT, as local authorities do?
In relation to York, may we have an update from the Minister on the important matter of non-contiguous boundaries affecting authorities’ ability to combine? The Minister and I have discussed that issue informally on several occasions, and there have been exchanges in the House between us and between the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State on the matter. Although those exchanges have been encouraging, there is frustration in some parts of the country about the delay. The Minister may be aware that Portsmouth and Southampton councils, for example, are keen to work more closely together but feel that they are being prevented from doing so by Hampshire county council, which does not wish to be involved in such joint arrangements. We urge the Government to consider how that issue can be dealt with in all parts of the country, but the Government may choose to make specific arrangements in individual cases.
As the Minister knows, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has made the case for the City of York, which wishes to join the Leeds city region. The Secretary of State has agreed that that makes sense. He told my right hon. Friend on 28 October 2013:
“I am confident we can have a resolution before Christmas.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 690.]
However, in a written answer in February the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, said that
“we are now considering consulting before the summer on a Legislative Reform Order”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 120W.]
That may be the order to which he referred earlier, which the Government hope to bring forward before the purdah period.
My right hon. Friend raised the delay at Communities and Local Government questions on 3 March. The Secretary of State said:
“I did not specify which Christmas I meant. However, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking, and it was a proper undertaking. Various legal obstacles were put in our way, but we intend to consult, and, subject to the position being legally satisfactory, there will be a resolution. Given that I gave an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to resolve the matter, I will not lightly do otherwise.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 621.]
We welcome that assurance. We have appreciated the constructive dialogue that has taken place between the Opposition and the Government. We accept that the Secretary of State’s undertaking was given in good faith, but I am sure the Minister understands that there is some disappointment that the matter is dragging on.
Julian Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify to the House why he is so eager for York to get into bed with the West Yorkshire combined authority? Will he come clean with the House and with voters in York and north Yorkshire? Why is he pushing this hobby horse?
Andy Sawford
The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask the Secretary of State why he agrees with us that the proposal makes sense. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman pushes me to say why I am keen: I am a localist. If the City of York believes that the proposal is in the interests of the community that it serves, subject to a proper process—there will be a consultation, and there will have to be compelling evidence, as there has been in the other three areas that we are considering today, that this is the right way forward—and if it is the wish of local people, of course it should go ahead. It is undemocratic of the hon. Gentleman to seek to hold back the economic development of the City of York.
Julian Smith
What does the hon. Gentleman say about the commitment that York has made—half-in and half-out—to the York and North Yorkshire local enterprise partnership? Should he not be urging York council to play a much more vigorous part in that partnership and to stop thinking about getting over to where the grass is greener in the new West Yorkshire authority?
Andy Sawford
If the people of York and the elected local authority in York believe that it is in the interests of their community, they should have the right to make that case to the Government. If the hon. Gentleman disagrees, he can put his view forward. In the end, he will have to persuade his own side, not me. I am persuaded that if that is what the City of York wants, of course it should go forward. However, the hon. Gentleman does have an important point about the relationship between the combined authorities and the local enterprise partnerships. I shall refer to that.
We accept that the Secretary of State gave the undertaking in good faith. He said that there are legal obstacles. Is it possible to address the specific issue of the City of York and address those legal obstacles separately, or are they in effect bound up together? Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. In view of the constructive dialogue that has taken place, it would be helpful for us to have a greater understanding of the legal dimension that the Government are grappling with.
There is a wider issue about how the geography of the country and the structure of local government mean that establishing combined authorities is much more difficult in many areas of the country. The hon. Gentleman alluded to that in relation to arrangements in Yorkshire. The arrangements for LEPs around the country vary hugely, and they already reflect the complex geography. There are issues regarding LEPs that need further consideration, especially around how coherently they operate with the boundaries of combined authorities. For example, the Sheffield city region LEP includes a number of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire districts. However, given that the two county councils will not be members of the combined authority, non-South Yorkshire districts cannot be constituent members of the authority, and South Yorkshire members must always hold a majority of the vote.
If LEPs are to co-exist with combined authorities and strategic counties, they cannot merely operate in the same space. There needs to be a clear distinction of roles and responsibilities. The critical point is that while LEPs can provide private sector input and insight, which is to be welcomed, they are neither statutory nor democratically accountable bodies, and in their current form they should not hold resources themselves. The Minister will no doubt fondly recall the extensive debate on the accountability of LEPs during the passage of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, and I hope that it is something he will consider further in light of the development of combined authority arrangements. The Opposition will work closely with local authorities and talk with LEPs throughout the country about their future role, particularly through the review being undertaken by Lord Adonis.
Before I conclude, I want to comment on Total Place, which the Government have rather reluctantly taken forward in their limited approach to community budgets, whereas the Opposition see much more potential and believe that combined authorities will take a lead. As well as investing more in prevention and early intervention, it is crucial that we support councils to deliver economic growth in all areas of the country. To do that, we will extend the model of city deals throughout local government, devolving power over housing and planning, and jobs and skills, but councils and communities must come together to decide how best to use the powers, and develop arrangements that suit local needs. That is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) calls “the English deal”.
Despite the Government promising to push power down, it has taken four years for the orders to come forward. It will be left to the next Labour Government radically to reconfigure the way in which services are designed and delivered. By devolving ineffective national programmes to local areas we will give local people more power to create services that are more responsive to local conditions, build in people’s involvement in decisions more closely, and power our economies forward throughout the country in a way that is fair.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I join colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming the Secretary of State’s creation of combined authorities. Far from stepping back and passively surrendering to the unyielding rise of London, with its increasingly dominant role in our economy during the past 30 years—which I know the Secretary of State would never do—the Government are rightly taking the necessary and vital steps to tackle the north-south divide head on.
The reality is that all major conurbations that have worked towards the combined authority status have, in their day, been global leaders in their respective field—steel production in Sheffield, shipbuilding in Newcastle and Liverpool, cotton spinning in Manchester, which was the world’s first industrialised city, and woollen textiles in Leeds, which in 1770 handled one sixth of the country’s entire export trade.
Alas, an illustrious history alone is not enough to sustain jobs in today’s fast-paced and frenetic global economy. We are, as has rightly been pointed out many times, in a global race, not just with our established rivals, such as New York, Paris and Tokyo, but with the new emerging business centres of the east, such as Dhaka in Bangladesh, Hyderabad in India and Guangzhou in China, a city of some 14 million people of which many in this country will not have heard. Providing our major northern cities with the tools they need to compete, not just against London but against everyone else in the international marketplace, is therefore essential to the future economic prosperity of the north and the rest of the country at large. Combined authorities show every sign of being successful in future, provided that the well-being of local residents and the long-term interests of the business community remain at the centre of their decision making.
While I am clearly in favour of combined authorities in principle, and although it undoubtedly makes sense for Leeds, Bradford and the surrounding west riding authorities to join together, I am not yet convinced that York’s destiny lies with the West Yorkshire combined authority. For those Members who are not aware, York is not, and has never been, part of the west riding. Although its economy is undoubtedly intertwined with that of Leeds and the surrounding region, its connections with the rest of North Yorkshire run deeper still, as I know the Secretary of State, being a fellow Yorkshireman, is well aware.
It is with North Yorkshire that York shares its police force and its fire and rescue services. Indeed, as has been touched on already, York has no boundaries with West Yorkshire whatsoever, encircled as it is by the North Yorkshire districts of Selby, Harrogate, Hambleton, Ryedale and East Riding. How, then, is York placed to benefit meaningfully from its membership of the West Yorkshire combined authority when it lies at the heart of North Yorkshire, and in more ways than one?
Julian Smith
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. In his summary of all the fantastic elements of York and North Yorkshire, will he pay tribute to the work of Barry Dodd and the local enterprise partnership, which has been leading the way in ensuring that we get inward investment and new businesses set up in both York and North Yorkshire?
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. He is absolutely right. The York, North Yorkshire and East Riding enterprise partnership has taken amazing strides forward, ably led by Barry Dodd, and it is doing great work. It is really important for the LEP that York plays a key role within it, and rightly so.
As York does not share contiguous boundaries with the rest of the West Yorkshire combined authority, it is now to be a non-constituent member without voting rights. The residents of York will presumably have to contribute funds to the combined authority—there is still some uncertainly over that—but they will not possess a vote on important matters. What safeguards will be put in place to stop those taxes being used to improve transport priorities in West Yorkshire, rather than in York?
Ultimately, it seems to me that we need not only a West Yorkshire combined authority, but a North and East Yorkshire combined authority, to act as an essential counterbalance and to support the rural hinterland that York sits at the centre of—geographically, culturally and economically. In essence, York is the heartbeat of that rural hinterland of North Yorkshire, and removing it could have far-reaching economic consequences.
Julian Smith
Is not that why it is so surprising to hear the shadow Minister’s complete lack of understanding of the economic ties that bring together the highly rural areas I represent and the outskirts of York that my hon. Friend represents?
Julian Sturdy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a real danger that if York is removed, the North and East Yorkshire conurbations will lack a centre. I fear that it would be very difficult for a combined authority to come forward in those circumstances. Removing York would essentially leave North and East Yorkshire alone.
John Healey
The beauty of the Minister’s solution is that it will not take York out of the heart of North Yorkshire. As the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) has argued, York’s economy is intertwined with West Yorkshire’s. This is a variable geometry that allows it to be part of a combined authority for some of the strategic economic decisions that it can play a part in and benefit from while still maintaining its leading role within the wider North Yorkshire area for other purposes and services.
Julian Sturdy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He might not be aware that York plays a key role in both LEPs, because it sits within not only the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding LEP but the Leeds LEP. It is absolutely vital that the city of York plays a leading role in both LEPs. Worryingly, over the past 12 months York took a decision to leave the North Yorkshire LEP and put all its eggs into the Leeds LEP basket. Thankfully, after some strong persuasion, that situation has been reversed. However, it showed the real danger that York could, in essence, walk away from its hinterland area for completely the wrong reasons, and we have to guard against that.
York, as a leading centre of innovation and wealth creation in the north, has so much to offer, but such opportunities must not be squandered by jumping on the first bus that comes along, which is what I fear is happening. In my view, that bus is also travelling in the wrong direction. York must not rush headlong into a decision. It must consider all its options, in consultation with local businesses and local residents, as the shadow Minister said, and then come to a transparent decision—I underline the word “transparent”—that reflects the views of the majority, not just the few.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I intend to support the draft statutory instruments, and I shall give my reasons for doing so.
What used to be known as Merseyside and is now known as the Liverpool city region has, over the years, underperformed in comparison with the place we are most often compared with, Greater Manchester. That might seem a strange thing for me to say, as a Merseyside MP, but I have said it publicly before. Indeed, the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), has heard me do so privately and publicly. I say it because we have been very reluctant, as individual authorities rather than collectively, to decide on what was right strategically for the whole city region as opposed to what might be difficult, in the short term, to argue in St Helens, Halton or Knowsley. There has been no mechanism, and often no will, to get together and say, “This is important for the whole city region. We should all get behind it and hopefully bring it to a successful conclusion.”
I will cite an example. It is significant that my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) is here as I discuss this. Under the previous Government, there was a well-worked-up project called Merseytram line 1, which the transport authority had taken to a very late stage; it had carried out all the consultation and the project was ready to go ahead. My hon. Friend, who was the Minister responsible at the time, had to decline it because of opposition from within the Liverpool city region. In other words, some parts of the city region were unwilling to support something that did not go through their own boroughs on the grounds that there was no immediate benefit to them, even though it was of strategic importance to the wider city region. That was a very short-sighted way to behave, and I said so at the time. That is partly why I welcome these orders.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I do not agree with him. Even if he is right, is the fact that he did not agree with the specific route a reason to scupper the whole project? By saying, “If I can’t get the route I want, we won’t have a tram at all,” I think he has made the point I am trying to demonstrate. My criticism of how we have responded in the past is supported by and encapsulated in his intervention.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making some very important points. I know the history well. There is now a much greater will in the Merseyside authorities to work together and this is probably an opportune time to do this, because there is a realisation that we have to work more closely together on strategic transport and economic issues.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is the case I am trying make, although perhaps not as pithily as he has. I will try to develop the argument, but before I move on I want to say that I am particularly indebted to the chief executive of Knowsley borough council, Sheena Ramsey, and her staff for the briefing they have provided for this debate.
I want to make a few points about the proposals as they stand. How can I put this? The glass is half full, and I want to explain why it is not entirely full. It is important that the combined authority will have responsibility for strategic decision making on economic development, transport, housing and employment and skills. It is time that we as a city region had that focus, which we have not always had, or even been able to have, in the past. My briefing states that the combined authority will
“be focussed entirely on strategic governance to facilitate economic growth.”
As the Minister said, that is an important new departure and one that should be welcomed. Those are the potential themes and powers, and I hope that the governance system will work.
That is why I am in favour of the order and why, in the unlikely event of a Division, I would vote for it. On the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, paragraph 8.11 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“All of the statutory consultees, the Local Enterprise Partnership and the neighbouring local authorities all support the establishment of the Combined Authority.”
That is fine; it is even a breakthrough in terms of our history. Paragraph 8.12 goes on to say:
“However, the statutory consultees asked for the name to be changed from that which was proposed in the consultation (The Greater Merseyside Combined Authority). Their responses were in support of a name that included the word ‘Liverpool’, rather than ‘Merseyside’. The six constituent authorities and the Local Enterprise Partnership stated their preference for ‘Liverpool City Region Combined Authority’. Having taken account of all of the comments made”—
this is ludicrous—
“the Government has decided the name in the Order, to which the statutory consultees have now all consented, of ‘the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority’—
a name that really rolls off the tongue. It will be instantly forgettable for anybody who hears it.
I do have a serious point to make. The Secretary of State champions the cause of localism—I have no reason to disbelieve him—as, indeed, does my party these days. For central Government, localism means being prepared to let go a little and to say, “Well, if that’s what local authorities want to do, that’s their decision, and if they get it wrong, they’ll be punished by the electorate.” That is the essence of what localism is all about. I am sure that the Minister will not confirm this, but my information is that the person who decided that the combined authority could not be called the Liverpool city region was none other than the Secretary of State. Why on earth did he want to interfere with the naming of the new combined authority and, having decided to interfere, why did he come up with a name such as the Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral combined authority?
We could argue that the name is a very accurate description of the areas concerned, but I honestly believe that this is a lesson for us all, and certainly for those in government or who aspire to be in government. If we are serious about localism, we should let local authorities make the wise decisions of which they are capable, and not tell them what to call a new combined authority. It seems to me to be an utter waste and, frankly, a misapplication of the time available to the Secretary of State, who should be getting on with more important things than interfering with this name.
A slight problem that has been a source of some controversy in my part of the world in recent weeks is that, because there is a directly elected mayor in Liverpool—Joe Anderson—the governance system is potentially asymmetric. The fact that one person is directly elected as the mayor of the city of Liverpool while the other local authorities all have leaders might make the system asymmetric. There has been a bit of a spat in the local media about who will chair the combined authority, and whether the elected mayor should do so. I do not want to interfere in that discussion. I have nothing but praise to heap on the shoulders of Joe Anderson, the elected mayor of Liverpool, who is doing a good job, but the fact is that he has not been directly elected as the mayor of Knowsley, Halton, St Helens, Wirral or Sefton, which may create a bit of asymmetry in the system.
Ultimately, my solution would be to have an elected mayor for the city region in the long term. That would mean that there was a direct relationship, on such issues as transport, between the person elected by the whole city region, and the powers available to them and their accountability to a wider electorate. We cannot allow a mayor elected for one local authority to acquire by accretion—I am not saying that that is Joe Anderson’s intention, because I know that it is not—powers in areas of which they were not elected to be mayor, which is a potential problem.
Derek Twigg
That point is very important. Most people would recognise the need for and be sympathetic to having the kind of transport and economic strategy that could be developed by the combined authority in a city region, but they clearly do not want the individual local authorities that they elect to lose powers to a wider body. There is certainly no support for that in my constituency.
Mr Howarth
Frankly, there would be no support for that in Knowsley, St Helens or Wirral. The public do not want the powers that their local authority has to be passed on to some other body. That is not what is proposed. They would also not want those powers to be passed on to a mayor who has been elected by one area, but not by the wider city region. I repeat that I mean no criticism of the individual concerned, who is doing a good job. It is just that there are two systems operating within the one city region.
I think that we will eventually reach the answer that I have put forward. In fact, as the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells will confirm, we could have gone down that route on this occasion, but that was not the decision that the local authorities made. At one memorable meeting, I predicted that that would be the case, based on past form. However, those problems can be confronted in the fullness of time and are not barriers to going ahead with the order.
I am happy to support the order and to wish the new, inelegantly titled city region all the best for the future. I hope that it will do the job that it is billed to do, because we desperately need that in our city region.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). We have talked about these subjects many times in private and public settings. However, I do not share his enthusiasm for city region mayors.
The orders will be passed in any case, but I want to point out four distinct problems as quickly as I can. The first is the problem of peripheries. Although we talk much about communities, the orders are about councils. Councils and communities are not quite the same thing. Communities that are on the periphery of council areas, such as my town of Southport, often feel overlooked in such arrangements. I am sure that the Minister, as a representative of a seaside town, will understand that seaside towns have a special and distinct offer to make in respect of tourism, which might be lost in a city region picture.
The second problem, which we must all acknowledge honestly, is that the authorities to be combined are not of equal size. There is always the problem of the big player, whether it be Liverpool, Manchester or possibly Leeds. Manchester has dealt with the problem extraordinarily well. The combined authority is not chaired by Manchester. The system thrives in Manchester because the personnel work very well together. We cannot guarantee that that will happen everywhere.
The third problem is that of spare-part authorities. I will use the example of west Lancashire, which adjoins the Liverpool city region—I will call it that to save time. We have to accept that local authority boundaries are often the result more of gerrymandering than of intelligent design. West Lancs is very much part of many aspects of the Liverpool city region. For example, the Merseyrail transport system runs right through west Lancs. It is part of a two-tier system and at some point that anomaly will be recognised. I would like the Minister to say how that will be dealt with and how we can have not just variable geometry, but variable geography.
Lastly, I would like the Minister to say a few more words about proper scrutiny. At times, the political culture in some city regions can be somewhat monolithic—it has been recently. Its tradition is certainly adversarial. I am sure that some political players in the regions would be perfectly happy to meet in private and to strike deals away from the public and opposition members, and probably away from MPs as well. It is therefore necessary to hardwire proper scrutiny arrangements into the system. That is essential not just because it is a good thing, but because there has to be public confidence in the system. There will not be public confidence unless there is transparency and proper scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will address that issue, along with the issue of boundaries.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), who reminded the House just how complex any system or blueprint can be if the objective is to make it universal. That is why the Government are right to help groups of local authorities find a way to come together when that reflects a desire in their local communities. It is a question of responding to demand.
The Minister rightly told the House that he is ready to make the membership of the combined authorities as flexible as possible, according to the decisions of local people and local authorities. I hope that the Government and local authorities will not take a commitment to a combined authority lightly and simply walk away if decisions start to go against them or the political leadership of a local authority changes.
Julian Smith
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is exactly what City of York council did last year? It walked away from the York, North Yorkshire and East Riding economic partnership. That example of walking away from a commitment that it had made was pretty shocking.
John Healey
I am not entirely convinced that the two situations are comparable. We are talking today about a legislative commitment that binds authorities into exercising statutory powers. Participation in a local enterprise partnership is of a totally different order. I do not know the details of the judgment that City of York Council took about that LEP’s performance and its contribution to the jobs and wealth of people in the city—it would have to explain that.
I am pleased to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who is a very good friend. He made the important point that the change is a good first step, with the potential for our areas—South Yorkshire in my case, Merseyside in his—to go a great deal further, as long as the Government are prepared to back them to do so and to devolve essential powers and funding decisions that are better taken at that level. I will return to that point.
I also agree with my right hon. Friend that the South Yorkshire combined authority could and should be called that. Instead, we are asked to approve the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield combined authority. I hope that the Minister will prove as flexible about name changes as he has promised to be about membership changes.
John Healey
The Minister nods, so I will take that as a good sign. Perhaps the new combined authorities will make a forceful case for a name that properly reflects not just the geography but the identity of the area, which is what really counts for the people for whom the new combined authority will work.
I am really pleased by the active involvement of the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) in the debate and by the arguments that they have made. That signifies to me that there is a good Conservative case, and good Conservative support, for the innovation and wealth creation potential of areas outside London and the south-east. The hon. Member for York Outer reminded us of the great contribution that many of our northern and midlands cities have made in the past and can make again. I hope that both hon. Members have made strong representations to the Chancellor on that point, and that tomorrow he will provide significant policy freedoms and funding that could give life to the arguments that they have made. I am not holding my breath, but I will be delighted if they have succeeded in arguing that case with the Chancellor.
The Minister opened the debate with the obligatory page of the Chancellor’s spin sheet. The platitudes about racing economic recovery simply do not ring true in most areas of South Yorkshire. The recovery has not reached Rotherham or Barnsley. People there feel, and are, worse off under the current Government, because incomes have not kept pace with the cost of living—in fact, they have fallen behind it. The average family in my area are at least £2,000 worse off than when the Government came into power. In a year’s time, when the Government leave power, families face the prospect of being worse off at the end of a Government’s five-year period than they were at the beginning of it, for the first time.
I do not wish to make any more political points because this is an important debate and there is a broad measure of support for what the Government are proposing. On behalf of the four South Yorkshire local authorities, I pay tribute to the Minister’s decision to lay these orders before the House, and to his very able civil servants who have worked with our authorities to frame these provisions. Certainly from my point of view, and I think that of other Labour Members, he will receive support.
Authorities and areas such as Barnsley, Rotherham and Doncaster in South Yorkshire have a long history of working together well over the years, which reflects our natural economic geography and sense of identity in the wider county. The introduction of local enterprise partnerships, underpowered as they are, have reinforced that joint working over the past couple of years, and in some respects the combined authority will help to hardwire the private and public partnership working that we have established in South Yorkshire.
This is legislation for what has been collaboration by consent up to this point, and in future joint decision making will be more formal, have a legislative underpinning, and be part of a statutory entity. Those words do not mean much outside Whitehall, but I say to the Minister, and to the Minister of State, who has left his place, that I am prepared to take at face value the assertions given to the House that both Ministers are willing to consider and argue the case for greater devolution of powers, funding and responsibilities from central Government.
The problem, however, is that their arguments have not cut enough ice with colleagues in the Government and they have not made enough headway. Establishing the combined authorities removes one of the alibis that the Minister will often have found in Whitehall against devolution: “But Minister, we don’t know with any certainty who we’re devolving to.” Now that argument, that pretext for hanging on to powers at the centre, is gone. A statutory body, properly constituted with a governance arrangement and a degree of democratic accountability will, I hope, reinforce the Minister’s hand in the final 12 to 14 months that he and his Government have in office.
I hope that this will be not just the first example of bringing strategic economic development powers under the new combined authorities, working alongside LEPs, or of the powers and responsibilities of the current integrated transport authorities in our areas, but the start of a much more significant programme of devolution from the centre to our new combined authorities.
I make a plea for two steps for the Minister and his colleagues to argue with the Treasury. Will he argue to ensure that the combined authorities will, like the local authorities that constitute their membership, be able to reclaim VAT? That will make them more efficient with the use of public money, and reinforce their capacity to make a real economic difference to our area. Secondly, will he make the case, and will the Government concede for the new combined authorities the same borrowing powers that integrated transport authorities and local authorities now have—in other words, the well-established prudential regime, which is proven since the mid-2000s to have worked well for local government? Will he allow the combined authorities to borrow in order to invest beyond simply the transport field? I offer those remarks to the Minister perhaps as a very late Budget representation for Budget 2014. If I am too late for that, however, may I offer them as the first Budget representation for Budget 2015?
Brandon Lewis
The shadow Minister and other Labour Members commented on the Government’s ability to localise, but I struggle to listen to them on devolution and localisation. As a council leader under the previous Labour Government, I did not see very much devolution or localisation and neither did other council leaders. I gently point out that after 13 years in government the number of combined authorities the Labour Government put in place was zero, while this Government have managed to introduce them in just three years.
We have taken a lead on combined authorities in a short time and I am glad that we have the support of Opposition Members. I remind them, particularly the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), that the Localism Act 2011 saw a massive change in how we devolve powers to local communities, not just to local government. It is probably a large part of why the well-respected Richard Leese said that there had been more devolution in three years of this coalition Government than in 13 years under Labour. Labour Members might want to bear that in mind before trying to give us lessons on how to localise.
On a more positive note, we have had an interesting debate on what will be—if Parliament approves the orders and it is clear from what has been said that the House will support them—an important development in each of the three areas under consideration. It is an important development for the economic success of the three major conurbations, centred on the cities of Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield. It is a development that epitomises localism, being in each area founded on, and driven by, the initiative of the councils and their partners. The combined authorities will have a central role in taking forward the city deals in each of these areas. The combined authorities will be able to provide stable, efficient and accountable governance to drive forward the projects and investment needed to deliver the outcomes envisaged in those city deals. Likewise, the combined authorities will be able to provide the governance needed for any future growth deals, with resources being provided from the local growth fund.
Important points were raised by hon. Members from all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Corby raised a number of issues, not least on the local government finance settlement. He and I have had that debate on a number occasions and I can only remind him that the settlement made it clear that authorities with the highest demand for services continue to receive substantially more funding than others and have higher spending power.
The hon. Gentleman asked how the counties and districts will operate in South Yorkshire. The Sheffield city region local enterprise partnership has a strong board, and the intention is for it to work alongside the combined authority. We also understand now that the chief executives of the counties and constituent authorities have come together in agreement with the councils to have clear structures for joint working, and that gives us confidence.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raised, as he has before, the question of why York cannot now be part of the order for West Yorkshire. I am happy to deal with that point. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires that combined authorities consist of whole local authority areas that share the same boundaries. We are committed to reviewing the legislation as soon as possible and we will consult on how to change it and facilitate that change at the earliest opportunity. We intend to consult in the next few weeks.
The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) raised the question of VAT. I am pleased to be able to give them some reassurance. I confirm that the Government will open a consultation shortly on a proposal to add Greater Manchester and the combined authorities to the existing VAT refund scheme for local authorities, and to do that through secondary legislation.
John Healey
That is an extremely welcome statement, which will be warmly welcomed in Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield. Will he give the House an indication of the value of that move for the funding available to the combined authorities?
Brandon Lewis
Not at this stage, but I will happily look into it and write to the right hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) highlighted concern that York could walk away from North Yorkshire. As the Secretary of State and I said to him when we discussed this matter recently, we appreciate the circumstances. It will be important for York to continue to maintain a constructive partnership with North Yorkshire while it pursues its ambition for calibration with the neighbouring West Yorkshire councils, its natural economic partners. I understand that York is committed to that. However, my hon. Friend also raised the interesting possibility of a combined authority of a different construction. No doubt he will be putting forward that proposal soon.
Julian Smith
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that North Yorkshire does not lose out. May I urge him also to ensure that this attempt by York is transparent and open for consultation, and is not a gerrymandering deal as well as a city deal?
Brandon Lewis
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. There will be a full process including consultation and, as has happened today, the input of Members here in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer also asked whether the non-constituent authorities would have to contribute to the costs of the combined authorities. I can tell him that they are not required to do that. They will have to contribute only if and when they become constituent members. Funding will be based on an agreement between the constituent authorities themselves and I stress the word “constituent”—or on a default agreement relating to the populations of the constituent authorities.
The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) asked about the name of his combined authority. The names of the authorities have been agreed on and consented to by all the statutory consultees, but let me say in response to an issue that others have also raised that this is localism at its absolute purest. The authorities can choose whatever name they want, work under that name, brand it and “logo” it, and I wish them all the luck in the world.
Mr George Howarth
I think it would be more accurate to say that the authorities agreed to the new name reluctantly on the understanding that they would never have to use it, which rather makes my point. What was the point of the Secretary of State’s intervening in the first place?
Brandon Lewis
Coming up with a name on which every member of every combined authority agrees to be the one and only name—and a legal name—is not always that straightforward. Under the powers that we have introduced, combined authorities can now choose the brand name that they want to use, whatever it may be, and use it strongly and effectively to represent themselves.
Mr Howarth
I do not want to labour the point, but the fact is that all the authorities had previously agreed to the name “Liverpool city region”. It was only because the Secretary of State intervened that they eventually decided to give in rather than prolong things, by calling it what they had decided rather than what he had decided.
Brandon Lewis
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that we have given authorities the power to do what they like, to brand their names, and to use them as they wish. I am sure that they will do so very successfully. I also noted what he said about what he thinks will be the future development of the process and the establishment of a non-elected mayor for the entire area. That touches on a point that he made about this being a first step for local authorities. I am happy to state clearly from the Dispatch Box that I agree that local government is evolving and changing, as it always does over time. That is one of the strengths and beauties of the way in which local government in our country works. I have no doubt that it will evolve and change further in many other ways, and the right hon. Gentleman has described one potential change in his own area.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) mentioned seaside towns, and I share the experience that he described. He was right to point out that such towns felt left behind in the past, which is one of the reasons for the coalition Government’s introduction of the coastal communities fund. I was delighted to announce the round 2 funding a couple of weeks ago, along with the opening of round 3, which will make much more money available to help seaside towns with their economic regeneration. New criteria will make it easier for them to grow their economic futures while protecting their coastlines from erosion.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue related to governance. I will give him more details in writing, but I can tell him that each constituent council will appoint at least one of its elected members to be a member of the combined authority. As I said earlier, we intend them also to have non-voting members and members representing minority parties.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the potential for dominance by the big players. The orders have specified the voting arrangements based on the scheme developed by the councils concerned and each member does have one vote and no member has a casting vote. That is why it is important that the scrutiny is run efficiently and effectively.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on West Lancashire. In response to the Government’s consultation, West Lancashire stated its support for the combined authority because of the expected improvements in transport and economic growth.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne, in asking about VAT, also mentioned the powers to borrow. The combined authorities’ borrowing powers are limited to their transport function. They will inherit the levy-raising power of the integrated transport authority, hence the revenue-raising power exists only in relation to transport. The right hon. Gentleman also commented on my opening remarks.
John Healey
The Minister is being generous in giving way and in responding to some of the arguments today. He is stating the obvious fact that the borrowing powers in relation to transport derive from the levy-raising powers of the integrated transport authority from which the functions will be taken. However, what is the principled case for these properly constituted, legally established combined authorities not being able to borrow within the general prudential borrowing regime for local government?
Brandon Lewis
We believe the bodies that have the powers to raise revenue, or precepting bodies, should have directly elected members and be directly answerable to the electorate, and that is not possible for combined authorities. Indeed, to make it possible would require changes to primary legislation. However, I can see that the right hon. Gentleman may want to take up this issue, but, as I said earlier—and I know the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) takes the same view—if areas have ideas on how they want to move forward and what they want to develop, they can make the case. We will certainly give them the airtime to look at that, but I would say there is a concern around them and the point about elected accountability.
I understand why the right hon. Gentleman referred to my opening remarks about economic prosperity and the desire to see more of it in parts of the country. I am sure he will want to join me in apologising to the people of his area for the problems they have faced over the last few years as a direct result of the economic mess left by the last Labour Government.
Brandon Lewis
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is going to agree with me now—
John Healey
In 2007 people in my area of Barnsley and Rotherham had seen 10 years of stable economic growth, unemployment fall, employment rise, and inflation and interest rates at a stable level. Then the global financial crisis hit, and this country faced enormous economic problems, but I am proud to say the Labour Government played a part in co-ordinating the international response that dealt with that.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I do not entirely agree with his description. He seems to forget that from 2007 to 2010 not only was there the issue with the banks, but that since 2010 this Government have been having to deal with the bad economic decisions of the previous Government. We are having to deal with the fact that they spent money the country simply did not have. Nobody should be doing that; certainly we know from our own credit card bills that that is not a good way to move forward. This coalition Government are dealing with that mess and are making the difficult decisions required to develop a good long-term economic plan. The outcomes of that are now starting to be seen, with growth coming back while interest rates are being held down and with more people in work and unemployment falling. That is a good thing for our country and I commend that to the House in the same way that I will commend these combined authority orders.
Establishing these combined authorities is what the areas themselves want to see. They want them because of their commitment to delivering growth and prosperity for their areas and this Government have given them the power to do that. It is a priority that should be at the heart of everything that councils across our country are working to do. It is a commitment that business and other partners in each of these areas rightly share. It is also a commitment this coalition Government share, as demonstrated through the city deals we have agreed with these areas and others. Let us be clear about the importance of this: the first wave of deals alone is expected to create 175,000 jobs and 37,000 new apprentices —that is in addition to the almost 1.5 million new jobs in the private sector under this Government. It is a commitment I am confident this House shares, and I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Combined Authorities (Consequential Amendments) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Questions on the three remaining motions together.
Resolved,
That the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
That the draft Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.
That the draft West Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 10 March, be approved.—(Brandon Lewis.)
Criminal Procedural Rights (Opt-in Decision)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings, No. 17633/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, No. 17642/13, a Commission Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, and No. 17635/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings; and agrees with the Government that the UK should not exercise the opt-in to these measures.
I am pleased that the European Scrutiny Committee has called this debate, as these potentially important matters are of interest to Parliament and the public. The three proposals to be considered today all flow from the Stockholm work programme agreed in 2010, and two of them flow directly from the criminal procedural rights road map agreed in 2009 and later confirmed in the Stockholm programme. We have been presented with three directives, which appeared at the same time and which share a common date of 19 March for a decision on whether the UK will opt in. The decisions are individual and specific to each proposal.
I can tell the House that we have considered each proposal carefully. In line with the coalition agreement, we have looked at the potential benefits and disadvantages of UK participation to the national interest on a case-by-case basis. We asked ourselves whether it is in our national interest to be bound by any or all of the proposals, and we have concluded that it is not. The motion is therefore clear that we are minded not to opt in to any of the proposals, and I of course look forward to hearing the views of the House this afternoon.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his absolutely right decision, but can he confirm that it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government not to opt in at any stage?
Chris Grayling
I was going to make reference to that. I can confirm that we have agreed that we will not participate in the first and third item at any stage. We have agreed across the coalition that we will take a look at the second item in the discussions that take place. We will participate in the negotiations, but I say to the House this afternoon that I do not expect, at the end of that process, any change to the decision that we are proposing, which I hope the House will endorse this afternoon.
I have also given our officials permission to take part as observers in the negotiations on the other two measures, because, naturally, I am keen to ensure that our European partners take sensible steps, too. It is right and proper that we should be aware of what takes place, but I could not conceive of a situation where we could consider taking part in the presumption of innocence and the legal aid matters. Therefore, it is not our intention at any stage to participate.
I was glad to see that the European Scrutiny Committee has also concluded that the UK should not opt in to the proposals, so we are of one mind on them. It is also worth highlighting that we are considering these three measures alone today, and that the Government continue to engage with the Commission on wider 2014 measures. I will briefly discuss the possible pros and cons of each proposal, as it is important that the House understands the basis for our decisions and the proposal we are putting to it this afternoon. First, I wish to make a general point relevant to each of the proposals. Each of them would of course apply to all criminal cases in the UK. None is restricted to cross-border cases. That means that if we accept any of the proposals, we also effectively agree that, henceforth, the relevant matters of internal procedural law will be determined at an EU level rather than here. In addition, the highest court overseeing the implementation and interpretation of the rules would thereafter be the European Court of Justice and not any UK court. That is, of course, true of all EU laws, but it is important to bear that in mind as we consider the proposals.
I remind the House that the agreement we reached on the 2014 measures is that we do not believe that Britain should be part of a European justice system. We do not believe in the harmonisation of court and legal procedure, and our decisions reflect that view. I do not agree with those who wish to create such a unified system. Other member states are free to do so if they choose, but we have decided that this country should not be part of such an approach.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
The process that my right hon. Friend has described raises another problem, and I wonder whether he shares my view on it or approaches it from a different perspective. The proposals open up the possibility of conflicting decisions between the European Union system and the European convention on human rights on a number of issues. What happens in Britain has passed the test of the ECHR, but it would not necessarily pass the tests set in the proposals.
Chris Grayling
That is a very valid point, and my right hon. Friend is right to raise it. As he knows, we have different perspectives on the European Court of Human Rights, but he has highlighted one of the incongruities that will exist if we simply hand over jurisdiction in such crucial areas to the European Court of Justice, because there are some clear contradictions between European measures and those set out in the convention. Whatever our different perspectives in the coalition, we share that view of the problems that may arise from such Europeanisation of law.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s concluding remarks to the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). The difference between the ECHR and the European Court is that according to section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, when a decision has been taken under that section, it is binding on us. Our Supreme Court cannot change that law, and there is no opportunity to appeal. That raises the whole question of who governs the United Kingdom in that area.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend highlights an area about which I am concerned, and on which there are perhaps disagreements within the coalition. Although there are democratic checks on the court system in this country—if Parliament does not agree with a Supreme Court ruling, it has the option of changing the law accordingly—the same is not true of international courts.
We have a lively discussion in the coalition about our future relationship with the ECHR, but if we start to hand over key elements of the working of our justice system to the ECJ, there is a real danger that in an attempt to harmonise, we will lose some of the things that make our system strong. There is no doubt in my mind that English, Scottish and Northern Irish law are highly regarded around the world, and I would not want to see them internationalised. If that happened, the distinctive features that make London, Edinburgh and Belfast attractive legal centres might be less pronounced than they are today.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a case for minimum standards for the treatment of child defendants, and for people to have the right to appear in court and to be considered innocent until proven guilty? What is wrong with that? Why should other people not share those values?
Chris Grayling
In some respects, the hon. Gentleman is right, and that is what we do in this country. The question is whether he believes we should hand over future decision making about our judicial process and court process to an international court over which we have no control. He and his party clearly think that we should. I do not, and that is one of the things that divide us.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
I applaud my right hon. Friend’s wise and sensible decision, and I am particularly pleased to hear him say that the national interest is paramount in the consideration of such matters. I note his decision, and I say, “Very well done.” Can he do more to ensure that some of his ministerial colleagues are as wise and sensible when considering other opt-ins to ensure that this outbreak of sensible decision making is consistent across the board?
Chris Grayling
I will do my best.
Let me touch briefly on the three measures. The first relates to the presumption of innocence. The proposal does not flow directly from the road map; it stems from the invitation in the Stockholm work programme for the Commission to consider whether issues not explicitly included in the road map—such as the presumption of innocence—might have a bearing on the mutual trust between member states.
It is very much a matter of regret to me that, in response to an invitation to consider that matter, the Commission concluded that legislative action was necessary. Even if it had concluded that something had to be done—that is a matter for debate—there are alternatives to new legislation or common EU rules. I say this as there seems to be very little evidence of need for the proposal or for common EU rules in this area. That point seems to be acknowledged in the Commission’s own impact assessment, which notes that quantifiable evidence of any problem is scant. In the light of that, I wonder why it has still proposed common rules.
This has been a matter of particular interest to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, in the context of the proposal’s compliance with the subsidiarity principle. I note that the Committee issued a reasoned opinion on the matter, and it is a shame that it did not manage to secure support from other Parliaments in doing so. I want to see the Commission paying a little more attention to the yellow card system than it has been doing recently.
Mr Cash
My right hon. Friend will recall that, on the question of the public prosecutor, the threshold was crossed but, even then, the European Commission decided that it would go ahead. Does he not regard that as an extraordinary situation? Does he agree that the yellow card system has been severely vitiated as a result?
Chris Grayling
I attended the Justice and Home Affairs Council at which this issue was discussed, and I have to say that there was extensive disquiet among member states. If the Commission wishes to be credible, it cannot simply ignore the system that was put in place by the Lisbon treaty in the way that it did in that particular case.
Let me turn to the second item on the list, which is the proposal on child defendants. By any assessment, I consider the UK arrangements for dealing with and helping children who become engaged with the law enforcement agencies and with criminal proceedings to be very good. There is a raft of specific provisions in place in the UK to assist children in those situations, and we wholeheartedly support the principle that children in those circumstances need to be treated differently from adults in some respects, given their particular vulnerabilities.
Beyond the general principle behind the proposal, however, and given that the UK’s current arrangements provide a significant degree of protection as good as that available anywhere else, the proposal presents significant difficulties. First, the definition of a child in the proposal is set at those under 18 years of age. In England and Wales, the procedural protections provided to suspects and defendants based on their age are varied to reflect the specific circumstances of their case. Article 1 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—to which the UK is a signatory, and to which the coalition Government undertook to give due consideration when making new policies and legislation—contains the same definition. In the context of the courts, prisons and the probation service, those under 18 years of age are treated as children and young people. However, there is a different approach for when the police deal with 17-year-olds under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, when, for practical reasons, 17-year-olds suspected of committing an offence are for some purposes treated as adults. Clearly, that would be an issue in regard to these proposals as well. The position in Scotland stands in even clearer contrast to the proposal, as it tends to treat younger people—that is, those aged 16 and above—as adults for these and other purposes.
Chris Grayling
At the moment, this is in the early stages. One reason that we agreed to participate in the negotiations—albeit expressing up front our intention not to opt in—was to allow precisely that kind of discussion to take place. I have nothing to be ashamed of in relation to the way we manage our affairs in this country, although I understand that improvements might be needed elsewhere. My sole concern is that our rules should not be subject to the jurisdiction of an international court over which we hold no sway.
Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I am sorry that I missed the very beginning of his speech. I warmly welcome the course that he has taken today. Is not the point that these matters are part of our arrangements in this country—in England and in Scotland—and should be decided here in this Parliament, subject to debate, representations from our constituents and election, and not by the European Union?
Chris Grayling
That is the point. We have 800 years of legal tradition in this country. It has evolved in a number of different ways and is subject to change and review in both the courts and our Parliament. I do not really feel that we need to bring a third body into that relationship. To my mind keeping the European Court of Justice at arm’s length over these matters is absolutely where we need to be.
Geraint Davies
On that point and the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—with which I do not agree, incidentally—the age of criminal responsibility in Britain for children is 10, which is far younger than elsewhere in Europe. Children are required to go to a full criminal court. Surely there is something to be learned from others, or are we too arrogant to listen?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman and I are on different sides of the House. When we disagree on different issues we can debate them in this House. If it is his view that the age of criminal responsibility in this country is too low, it is perfectly reasonable to articulate that in this House, to bring forward measures that could change that, and for us to debate it. My issue is that that is a decision for this Parliament and not for elsewhere, which is why I am taking the view I am this afternoon.
It is also worth saying that the proposal seeks to establish that any deprivation of a child’s liberty must be as a matter of “last resort”. The notion that children should not be detained unless necessary causes little difficulty in the UK, but it is obvious that it introduces a different test from that which currently applies in England and Wales in which children are deprived of their liberty if it is considered necessary—during a police investigation or on remand awaiting trial. That would also have to be subject to reconsideration if we were to opt into this measure and could lead to significant changes, which should be a matter for this Parliament and not for anyone else.
Given that the UK has one of the most comprehensive and generous legal aid regimes in the world, it will perhaps not surprise this House that our analysis suggests that our current practice—in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—means that we are already compliant with the majority of the provisions of the proposed directive. We might, therefore, argue that as it does not ask much change of us, it would be fine to opt into it. However, it does require some change. It requires changes to procedures around the entitlement of somebody who is subject to a European arrest warrant to receive legal advice both in the country of arrest and the country that is seeking arrest. That would have small financial cost for us, but it is, none the less, a financial change that would be imposed on us. It would not be a priority area for us to increase legal aid spending at a time when the legal aid budget is, for necessary reasons, under enormous pressure.
It is not necessary or appropriate for our legal aid system to come under international rules. The level and nature of spend should be subject to a decision in this House. It should be a matter for Parliament. I do not think that we should pass over ultimate jurisdiction over our legal aid rules to the European Court of Justice, which is why I have said clearly that I cannot conceive of a situation in which we would wish to opt into this. I am therefore not prepared at this stage to leave that door open. It is not what this Parliament or this country want. I will not try to pretend otherwise. Let us be clear and up front and say that this is not something of which we wish to be a part.
Geraint Davies
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can confirm the estimated costs of that measure in terms of added legal aid costs. My understanding is that it is just £200,000, compared with his budget of £7.5 billion. It is not significant, so he is talking about the principle rather than the money.
Chris Grayling
I just said that it was not a large amount. It is a question of principle. Do we want decisions about legal aid entitlement to be taken in this Parliament by Government, scrutinised by the Select Committees of the House and by Parliament itself, or do we want to subject ourselves to an uncertain international jurisdiction that may, at a later date, decide that we have to do things in a wholly different way from the customs and practices in this country, often with a cost that is simply not budgeted for? My view is that we do not want that, and I propose that we do not accept that.
I have set out here in both general and specific terms why the proposals present difficulties in the UK, why, in their current shape, we could not support them and why we conclude that we should not opt into any of them. There is, of course, a question about negotiability, and these texts are not final. They may be open to changes in discussions in Brussels, which may improve them, but our assessment at this stage must be taken on the basis of the presented text; we have no other basis. It is of course possible that the proposed directive will change for the better in negotiation, but it is also possible that it could change in a way that make things even more problematical. We do not know for sure. We face a new Commission and a new Parliament in the summer. The Lisbon treaty provides co-decision making to the European Parliament. Matters relating to these directives can be amended in that Parliament and could theoretically impose costs on us that are absolutely not budgeted for.
It seems to me that the scale of our difficulties with the current proposals on the presumption of innocence and legal aid are such that it is difficult to foresee any realistic prospect of negotiating them to a conclusion that the UK could now accept. They are simply too far away from acceptability. Although we will continue to monitor the forthcoming negotiations, we will be clear about our position at the outset. I hope that that clarity will be useful to the House and that the House will support it this afternoon.
The proposals on child defendants also present significant difficulties and I do not underestimate them. I think it is pretty unlikely that we would be able to secure changes that would make them acceptable or better. That is why we are recommending this afternoon that we should also indicate that we will not opt in. I have instructed officials that they should participate in the negotiation to see whether changes made at a later date would be advantageous to this country. I am not convinced that that will happen, but I have left it open as a possibility. That was what was agreed across the Government.
I will ask my officials to work closely with interested Departments, including the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to ensure that the message is communicated effectively to our EU partners and is factored into wider engagements on matters such as the 2014 decision. My view is that the proposal I am laying before the House this afternoon is in the national interest. I have considered carefully the different measures and I am very clear that it is not right for the UK to opt into them, but it is important that this House has its say. I hope that the House will endorse that approach and that everyone in the Chamber will feel that it is right to accept our proposals and support the motion.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I can be fairly brief in addressing these three draft directives. That is not to say that they are unimportant both in themselves and in the context of European legislation, but the Government’s approach to them has been so casual and tardy that the ground has not been laid for sensible debate. I pray in aid the article in tonight’s Evening Standard entitled “EU law change ‘could help drivers escape speed fines’, says Chris Grayling”. That is how the Lord Chancellor sums up these three important draft directives for the public at large. If one were cynical, it would be tempting to assume that when the Secretary of State hears that European legislation is to be debated he first ignores it and then decides to oppose it not because of its merits but because it is European.
It is good to see the Secretary of State proposing the motion. The previous Lord Chancellor used to leave it to his junior Ministers; I wonder why? The current Lord Chancellor’s appearances in the House are rare compared with those in the Evening Standard, but I think that he has come for the approbation of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and others rather than to give a reasoned opinion on the matter in hand. His opening speech has sadly confirmed that. The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee is too wise a man to play the Secretary of State’s game, as the Committee’s reports in the bundle make clear.
Let me first set out the Opposition’s position on the draft directives and then have a little moan about how they have come before us. The presumption of innocence is speedily dealt with. We debated it in the Chamber a month ago and my opinion has not changed since then. I gave two reasons why we would agree with the Government and not support the opt-in. They were:
“First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is ‘limited statistical quantifiable evidence’, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law”—
and—
“Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands.”
That is the point made by the Committee Chairman. I went on:
“For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 671.]
Interestingly, in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, we are about to debate further provisions that would allow for more speedy and, the Government would say, effective trial of cases in absence on minor offences. That partly organic and partly operational process of the courts is a good example of why it is wrong that we adopt that particular draft directive.
The two other draft directives are more compelling. They go to the practice and procedure in the law, rather than its fundamentals. They sit more comfortably with the three measures previously debated and decided on by the Government.
Geraint Davies
My hon. Friend will be aware that we already practise the assumption of innocence unless proven guilty and people’s right to be present in court. Is it not part of this partnership to promote best practice to others, rather than to abstain completely in the way the Government have, in particular by not providing the data to the EU Commission on the effectiveness of the justice system? We are the only country not to do that. It is ridiculous.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Where that is possible we should do it, and I will refer to a draft directive where we took exactly that line. I simply say in relation to the draft directive on the presumption of innocence that it was proving too difficult to accommodate the principally Roman law system of the other EU countries with our developed system of common law. It was just impossible. However, it does not stop us advocating within the EU on those matters, which we do very well; I just do not think that they are entirely compatible.
The Government opted in to the directives on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and on the right to information in criminal proceedings. I do not know whether that was because they were prior to regime change at the MOJ—a regime change so dramatic it makes the regime change in Crimea look positively evolutionary by comparison. We disagreed with the Government on the directive on the right to access a lawyer in criminal and European arrest warrant proceedings and voted against them because their arguments were poorly structured and articulated.
I have re-read the debate from 7 September 2011 and I am more than persuaded by the arguments that I put forward on that occasion, even though it did put me at odds with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, something that I am loth to do, given his reservoir of knowledge on these matters. The Law Society Gazette, an esteemed publication, reported me as saying that
“the government’s reasons for opting out of that directive were ‘at best unconvincing and at worst spurious’.”
It went on:
“He said the directive’s requirements are ‘broadly in line’ with current UK legislation and by not opting into it the government would ‘appear to be throwing away an advantage to British citizens’. Opting out at this stage, he said would ‘fatally’ undermine the UK’s authority and leverage during the negotiations. He added”–
presciently—
“‘it looks as though the government are looking for reasons to opt out at this stage’”—
something that has now become commonplace.
I mention that first, because I think that that directive had more in common with the other two draft directives that we have before us today, and secondly, because we do not resile from voting against the Government when we think that it is appropriate. Interestingly, one of the reasons for not opting in to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights is because part of that refers back to the directive on access to a lawyer. We clearly do not adopt that point. There are good reasons for supporting the draft directive on children’s rights, even on the Government’s case, as there are for favouring the right to an appropriate level of legal aid across the EU. The difficulty with supporting those draft directives is that the position is still far from clear.
Mr Clappison
The House will have been relieved to hear that the hon. Gentleman is persuaded by his own arguments—he is at least clear about that. Can he just tell us, in short, whether his position is that we should opt in to all these measures, or indeed any of them?
Mr Slaughter
That is the purpose of this speech, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. In relation to the draft directives on children’s rights and legal aid, the insurmountable hurdles that apply to the presumption of innocence directive do not apply. The difficulty we have tonight relates to some important questions, such as what will the cost be; what are the implications for UK legislation, meaning what would have to change; how far are they necessary harmonising measures; and how far do they fall into the same trap as the presumption of innocence draft directive, meaning how far do they exhort us to do something, rather than actually harmonising. It is quite difficult to say.
Let me explain what I mean. If we look at the very belated letter from the Government on the cost of these measures, we see that, in relation to the draft directive on safeguarding children’s rights, it is estimated that transporting 17-year-olds after being charged to local authority accommodation for overnight detention would cost £2.1 million. A breakdown of that figure shows that an estimated additional 5,200 places in local authority accommodation would be required each year in England and Wales, at a cost of approximately £395 a day for each 17-year-old suspect. With all due respect to the Lord Chancellor, those figures look as though they have been drawn up on the back of a fag packet. They were dreamt up at the last minute because the Committee was quite rightly pressing the Department to come up with a decision and some reason for it.
With regard to legal aid, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) pointed out, we are told that the net monetised discounted cost impact of the article over a 10-year appraisal period, if we opt in to the directive, is estimated to be between £1.5 million and £5 million, with a main estimate of around £2 million. That would equate to an undiscounted cost of approximately £200,000 per annum. Again, it looks as though—I think the Lord Chancellor effectively admitted this—we comply with those proposals. There would not be a great cost in opting in, but it is best to “big it up” and make it look worse than it is. I am afraid that I just do not trust what is in those documents.
Chris Grayling
My main concern about these measures, as I have said, is the fact that opting in to them would mean passing over jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether his party thinks that it is appropriate for the European Court of Justice to have sway in areas such as legal aid? He seems to be saying that it is not a big deal. Does he accept that the European Court of Justice should not have sway, or does he think that it should?
Mr Slaughter
I do not accept the argument that everything that comes out of Brussels is necessarily evil or inimical to the interests of this country, which appears to be the bizarre position that the Lord Chancellor has painted himself into. Uncharacteristically, we will sit on our hands tonight in relation to two of the draft directives. To answer his question directly, I do not rule out any future opt-in, as of course the Government do not in relation to the directive on access to a lawyer, because I understand that their position is that they still might opt in. Even with the spin that he has put on it, I understand that for at least one of the draft directives there is a possibility that negotiations will lead to an opt-in. I welcome that pragmatic approach. It is a conservative approach, but it keeps the door open, rather than taking the radical approach that the Lord Chancellor would like to be seen to be taking.
Geraint Davies
Surely the point on legal aid is that this is to protect British citizens who might be wrongly accused and languishing in an unfit foreign prison, and to provide them with some legal support, at a total estimated cost of £200,000—a fraction of the value of the Home Secretary’s house.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes a good point which is exactly the one I made in relation to access to a lawyer: it is primarily British citizens abroad who would benefit. Yes, there is a moral purpose in our trying to get other EU countries to adopt the high standards that we have in this country, but there is also a practical purpose in trying to ensure that when British citizens get into trouble abroad they get the best assistance that they can in those countries. That is why it is sensible, where possible—as in two but perhaps not in the third of these draft directives—at least to keep the door open.
I wish that the Government would address these proposals seriously and not in a rhetorical and political way, and that they would respond to the Committee’s requests more timeously. The pertinent quote from the Committee is this:
“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s”—
explanatory memorandums—
“on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”
I am afraid that this is becoming typical of the way in which the Ministry of Justice operates. It is to a low standard and it shows a certain degree of, if not contempt, then at least disregard for this House and its Committees. If the hon. Member for Stone cannot elicit discipline and compliance from the Secretary of State, then it is beyond me, but I feel that the debate is poorer for it.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
As the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) said, the handling of this set of proposals has not been ideal, to put it mildly. The criticisms made by the European Scrutiny Committee have considerable weight. They also suggest that because of time constraints the Committee did not come to the Justice Committee for an opinion on proposals that fall pretty squarely within its remit. That would have been a much more desirable process to follow, and lessons ought to be learned from this.
Mr Cash
That process is exactly what we recommend in our report, which is currently awaiting the Government’s response. The right hon. Gentleman and I are in complete agreement about this. The more often it is possible, as in this case it was not, to go to one of the departmental Select Committees for its considered opinion, the better.
Sir Alan Beith
Perhaps unusually, my hon. Friend and I are indeed at one on this issue. As Chairman of the Liaison Committee, I give every encouragement to Select Committees to be ready to respond when the European Scrutiny Committee draws attention to matters and seeks opinions on them. That is how the process should work, so that we make the maximum uses of the resources of expertise among Members and, indeed, House staff, that we have built up over recent years.
Let me turn to some of the specific measures. On the presumption of innocence, the basis of the directive is that there might be significant difficulties in cross-border matters when identical standards have not been observed. However, no measurable evidence has been produced showing that cases under the European arrest warrant, for example, have frequently been obstructed over a lack of compliance with identical standards. Therefore, the whole basis on which the Commission is proceeding appears to be weak. The suggested measures would certainly adversely affect the UK provision that in certain circumstances inferences can be drawn from silence. The House has debated this at great length and with some care, and the courts have developed the operation of the system with some care. The caution administered to suspects reflects the fact that adverse inferences can be drawn from silence. These provisions would completely disrupt all those processes.
The biggest danger is one that I mentioned earlier in an intervention—that processes that have satisfied tests under the European convention on human rights would not necessarily pass the test of this directive. We would therefore end up with two alternative sources of challenge to English criminal law, leaving open the possibility of passing one and failing the other. That would be an undesirable state of affairs. It would cause confusion and, indeed, forum shopping, whereby someone could obtain their preferred outcome.
On the recommendation regarding legal aid and access to a lawyer, the jurisdiction both in England and Wales and in Scotland already satisfies the provision. My colleague and friend Sarah Ludford MEP has raised issues about the fact that, without the provision, there is no requirement for access to a lawyer in the state that issues the European arrest warrant. Problems can arise from that. Indeed, we have seen them in practice, whereby, had appropriate legal advice been available in the issuing state, an ill-founded arrest warrant might never have been issued in the first place. That factor needs to be considered in the future as the situation develops.
On procedural safeguards for children, a number of problems would arise if we were to adopt the Commission’s provisions, including with regard to the difference between ages, which has already been referred to, and the mandatory representation issue. As the Lord Chancellor has himself indicated, the United Nations convention on human rights is the most accepted international baseline for the protection of children in legal proceedings. It would be better if we proceeded with these matters through advocacy of that convention and used all the resources available to the European Commission to advocate and support adherence to it, rather than create complications between member states over issues that are not central to the protection of children’s rights.
I feel most strongly about an issue I addressed earlier. I do not want to see the role of the European convention on human rights as the primary European benchmark for human rights undermined by the creation of rival or alternative procedures. That is the danger we would run if we opted into the directives.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I will be brief. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Liaison and Justice Committees. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and make a plea to the Government: I know it is difficult and complicated when dealing with the European Union, but it is essential to give this House and its Select Committees as much opportunity as possible to discuss European issues. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor has sought to do that and that he will take that plea away with him for future debates and discussions.
I agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said today: it would be wrong for us to opt into any of the directives. I am particularly concerned about the third directive regarding legal aid and the European arrest warrant. As the House will know, the Home Affairs Committee is not a great fan of the European arrest warrant. We believe it is flawed and that it should be improved. There have been two judgments in the past week—I think the last one came from a court in Florence. The Government need to look again at the issue. I am sure it will be part of the Home Secretary’s discussions with her colleagues when they consider the entire justice and home affairs agenda and the question of opt-outs.
In a rare example of unity among departmental Select Committees, three of them—the European Scrutiny, Justice and Home Affairs Committees—will agree, word for word, a joint report. Given the personalities on those various Committees—indeed, given the personalities of their Chairs—it will be quite an achievement to get almost 30 Members of this House to agree, word for word, on one document, but I think that is what we are about to do.
I support what the Lord Chancellor has said. We need to be very cautious in dealing with jurisdictions, especially as far as the criminal law is concerned. In my view, our criminal law and procedures are different from what happens in the rest of the European Union. The Lord Chancellor is right to let his officials continue to be part of the ongoing discussions, not because we want to convince the 27 other countries to adopt what we do but because if anything comes out of the discussions that would benefit our system of justice we will certainly want to adopt it. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), the shadow Justice Minister. It is important to allow the Government to proceed on the basis that they are, and we should not oppose the motion.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) quoted his speech in 2011, but it is his speech today that ought to go down in legend and song. Indeed, a sentence from it should be engraved in the deepest, finest granite and remembered by all of us who are interested in this debate, for he got absolutely to the heart of the subject when he said that the problem is trying to impose a system of Roman law on a common law system. That is at the heart of the difficulty of imposing anything from the justice area on the United Kingdom. I rejoice at his saying it, because I hope that it shows a change from his attitude in 2011, when he was quite keen on opting into things. I did not agree with the vision of his previous speech, but this one was of the greatest quality, nobility and thoughtfulness, and I hope that it receives the praise it deserves.
While in this mood of good will, I want to praise the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. In opting out of the three important directives—and, indeed, from the directive on right of access to a lawyer—he has avoided falling into the European trap. A number of directives are coming through in the justice and home affairs area, particularly on the European arrest warrant, which we have opted into, and the trap is very serious. Once we have opted into one thing, the next step is to say that because it is possible for a British citizen to be arrested by a foreign court and taken out of this country to be tried in a foreign place, losing the rights that would normally belong to a British subject, we need to impose other safeguards, but to impose such safeguards we need common rules to ensure that treatment is the same and that we have a pan-European view on the presumption of innocence.
Such a view is needed because a British subject can be taken out of this country and taken abroad without any questioning in this country of whether their trial will be fair and proper. As that can be done under the European arrest warrant, we are led to say that it is only right and proper to have safeguards on the presumption of innocence. Exactly the same applies to the directive on procedural safeguards for children and, tying in with it, the right of access to a lawyer.
Once there is common acceptance of other nations’ legal systems, we begin to say that they will work only if we have common safeguards, and once we begin to accept common safeguards we are effectively implementing a single criminal law across the whole of Europe. Once that has been done, legal aid must of course be unified across the European Union, because the person arrested needs to be able to afford the defence to which they are entitled, in accordance with laws laid down by the centre.
This is not a matter of co-operating with European partners or of saying that there is a proper degree of justice in some European countries to which we are willing to extradite our citizens; it is a question of saying that we believe that ours is the only way to ensure proper justice in relation to some relatively undeveloped judicial systems. I am thinking of some countries that have joined the European Union more recently, particularly Croatia. In our debates about its application for membership of the European Union, we discussed the difficulties in its judiciary and police that were not solved before it joined. Despite the European Union’s requirement that they should be resolved, it was allowed to leave them to be improved after it joined. The same applies to Romania and Bulgaria. Once it has been accepted that such countries have the right to arrest British subjects, it inevitably follows that common standards of protection must be applied, with an overall court of appeal that can review it. Those are the stepping stones towards a single European criminal justice system.
I praise the Lord Chancellor because he is now, I hope, taking the stepping stones in the other direction. We have had the block opt-out. We have restored to the United Kingdom rights over justice and home affairs. Unfortunately, we have not settled on which items we wish to opt back into. When that list comes forward, it is crucial that the things that we opt back into are not used as an excuse for bringing back the measures before us. I am thinking in particular of the European arrest warrant. As soon as that is in, the presumption of innocence must be a pan-European right, because nobody in this House would like a British subject to be deported to a foreign country and not have the presumption of innocence in his favour. The same is true of the other two measures that we are countering.
I hope that in the battles that go on within Whitehall the Lord High Chancellor will know that he has the support not just of Conservative Members but of the bulk of the country in standing up for our common law system against, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith reminded us, a Roman law system that is not suitable for this nation.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sympathetic to the directives. The case for minimum standards across Europe has partially been made already. We live in a new Europe where people are mobile and in which people expect minimum standards. I understand that people are attached to their different judicial systems. There is a move in Wales to have a new, devolved judicial system. We could have lots of different and confusing judicial systems everywhere. There is a case for having our rights in Britain, but there is also a case for having minimum standards.
We should take a sensible approach to this matter, rather than our instinct being that everything is wrong and that we should have a block opt-out. There is a cost to British citizens in that. In this case, it is that dangerous criminals will be roaming around Europe and evading detection through confusion and a lack of co-operation.
The presumption of innocence and the right to be present are established in our law. I think that we should trumpet our best practice and encourage the adoption of minimum standards in countries that are entering the European Union. When British people go abroad, they expect those standards to prevail. Instead, we are saying, “We’re doing what we like and we don’t care what you’re doing. If you like it, you can take it, but it’s nothing to do with us.” We should be taking leadership, not being isolationist. It is the mentality of the UK Independence party and the Scottish National party to say, “We know best where we live.” That is certainly not the case.
The children’s rights directive says that there is a right to information, a right to a lawyer and a right to medical examination. I mentioned in an intervention that the age of criminal responsibility in Britain is very low at the age of 10. That is one reason why we need to afford our children the maximum possible protection. They are much more vulnerable than their European counterparts because they can be criminally responsible at a much younger age. In my view, there should be video recording of interviews with children. There is a strong case for medical examination. We are virtually alone in preserving the defence of reasonable chastisement. The British continue the ritual of hitting their children—smacking and all the rest of it. Having medical examinations in such cases is important to protect our children. It is also right that children should have a right to maintain contact with parents and guardians. The lot of children in Britain is not a happy one in comparison with the rest of Europe. We have something to learn. It is wrong to take the arrogant approach that we do everything right and they have all got it wrong.
When people are mobile within one community, they should be afforded the same rights—hence my support for the legal aid proposal. We have talked about costs, and we know that legal aid carries massive costs, but the costs of protecting UK citizens abroad who may have been wrongly accused and left in jail are estimated at £200,000 a year. That is very little to afford people that right. However, in the name of anti-Europeanism we are saying, “Oh, we don’t want them interfering with what we’ve got.” We live in a common judicial market in some senses, and we can have minimum standards while retaining our own laws.
The case is always made that if we agree to one step, the journey will continue endlessly and it will be the thin end of the wedge. I do not accept that. I believe that we should have a more mature and joined-up approach to debates such as this and take a selective view of the directives before us.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am extremely glad to be able to commend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice for his good decision on the directives. Inevitably, I am pleased that he has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We spent a lot of time on the subject and gave our opinions, and I am glad that he has taken a similar view to ours. That has a consequence, of course, because although we hoped for a three-hour debate, there is no need for one when there is such a healthy degree of agreement between the parties, subject only to a few comments that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Is my hon. Friend struck by the fact that when the Conservative party is Eurosceptic, it is united?
Mr Cash
I am indeed. I must be careful in what I say, but I simply note that when the Lisbon treaty was going through the House, I tabled 150 or so amendments, and there was complete unanimity among me and my close friends of the Euro-realist type, who supported those amendments, and the Opposition as a whole. The Conservative party was completely united right the way through the proceedings, for the first time since 1972. My hon. Friend is completely right, and there is a strong lesson there.
Moving on to the substance of the matters in question, Lidington debates form part of a package of measures that were intended to
“significantly strengthen Parliament’s oversight of EU Justice and Home Affairs matters and make the Government more accountable for the decisions it makes in the EU.”—[Official Report, 20 January 2011; Vol. 521, c. 52WS.]
That was what the Minister for Europe said in his written statement in January 2011, and it is important that we put it on the record. It is therefore disappointing—this is the only caveat to my otherwise considerable appreciation of what the Justice Secretary has done today—that, yet again, the Government were unable to give the Committee adequate notice of their recommended approach to the opt-in decision. That is a great pity, because we would not have needed to request a three-hour debate. There would not have been any need for it, subject to the agreement of the Opposition Front Benchers. I suggest that it would be helpful to understand what steps the Government intend to take to improve the process for holding Lidington debates and how they will ensure that their internal decision-making procedures do not continue to hamper the timely provision of information to Members of Parliament.
I also wish to make a point about explanatory memorandums. In the Committee’s initial report, we stated that we were not satisfied with the quality of the memorandums relating to all three proposals that we are discussing today. We have said that before, but I wished to put it on record again. That is a matter of concern to us in relation to not just the Ministry of Justice but Departments in general. The explanatory memorandum is the most important information that can be made available—I do not mean when compared with everything else, but it is important in its own right. It is therefore extremely important, as we say in our European Scrutiny Committee report—for which we are awaiting the Government’s response—that explanatory memorandums are of sufficiently high quality, because that is the basis on which we hold the Government to account. When they explain in a memorandum the policy that underlies their decision, that should be the basis on which we are able to address the House, and be sure that the Government are answering the questions that we have put and are coming up with a policy that is coherent and makes sense.
The first of the three draft directives under consideration is that on the presumption of innocence. Its scope, which sets out certain rights that could be interpreted more widely than similar rights in the European Court of Human Rights by the Strasbourg Court, is a matter of great concern, and I am extremely grateful for the remarks of the Chair of the Justice Committee on that issue. I am also glad that the Lord Chancellor has made it clear that at no stage will that measure be opted back into, and I will give one or two reasons by way of amplification.
To take up the point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, there would otherwise be different European Union and European Court of Human Rights procedural standards, which could cause legal uncertainty and confusion. That has now become an extremely topical question when applied to the judiciary. Members may have noted that, in their varying ways and without going into the detail, Lord Judge, Lord Sumption, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court, have all made incredibly important statements, in the most measured terms, about their concerns over the manner in which the Strasbourg Court approaches some of its judgments. This is not the time to go into all the detail, but I strongly recommend that their respective speeches are read by those who read these proceedings.
It is very important that people understand our concerns as members of the Conservative party—and indeed of other parties. Furthermore, some of the arguments that are presented as if we are just Eurosceptics who are out to be critical for the sake of it, are now increasingly supported—however discreetly—by some of the most eminent members of the judiciary in our analysis, which has taken a great deal of time and expertise to develop. It is important to remember that our arguments about the directive on the presumption of innocence are illustrative of the broader question of the methods of interpretation, for example, and the procedural standards in the two different Courts I have mentioned.
On procedural standards, in a nutshell, those based on European Union law override national law. As I said in an intervention, that means that the ability to draw adverse inferences from the silence of the accused, although compliant with the European Court of Human Rights, would become unlawful under European law if the United Kingdom participated in the proposal. That is dangerous, given that we have spent the best part of 600 years in the development of a common law on such matters, some of which—for those who watched it—were well illustrated in last night’s programme on the Plantagenets and Henry II. It was an interesting programme, much of which dealt with how we developed our common law.
The fact is that our courts have a system of appeal. The trouble with EU law in matters as important as the presumption of innocence, which is absolutely at the heart of Magna Carta and absolutely at the heart of our common law system, is that they would be eviscerated if the European Court of Justice were to apply the principles set out in this directive. The consequences would be for section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, passed all those years ago, to be binding on our judicial system, with no right of appeal once the European Court of Justice has adjudicated. That is different from the European Court of Human Rights, which we can override much more easily. I contend that we can put in a provision in an Act of Parliament to rectify that, by saying that, notwithstanding the European Communities Act, we will not accept this particular piece of legislation and thereby preserve our sovereignty. It is this kind of matter that is under discussion on the basis of the European Scrutiny Committee report, to which I referred earlier and on which we await the Government’s response. It is that important: there is no appeal from the European Court of Justice.
I spent two days in Rome last week discussing the question of fundamental rights with some extremely eminent lawyers from throughout the European Union. The Prime Minister of Italy was there, as were a range of other people: Mr Prodi, who used to be the President of the European Commission, people from the Council of Europe and from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and so on. I have to say that there was a great deal of disquiet at the manner in which the European Court of Justice operates in all cases. There are questions about the qualifications of the judges, the methods of interpretation and the issue of process. I will not go into those in detail, other than to put it on the record that the reason why the Government are right, why the European Scrutiny Committee is right and why it is right for this House to agree not to opt into these arrangements, is not just related to the question of the presumption of innocence in its own right, as important as that is. There is a much broader lesson to be learned on the manner in which the European Court functions and the whole question of the supremacy of Parliament. That lies at the heart of the Committee’s report and its recommendations that, if necessary, we should regain the right to veto legislation that we do not think is in the national interest, and to repeal unilaterally at Westminster legislation that is manifestly not in our national interest.
I will now move on to the directive on procedural safeguards for children. Members may want to note that the Committee’s report said that it would be disadvantageous for the Government to opt into this proposal, because the protection of a certain category of vulnerable defendant is best left to national policy and discretion. The differing approaches to the definition of the word “child” for the purposes of criminal procedural protection in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland demonstrate this point. There is a caveat to what the Lord Chancellor said in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). We want to be sure that this would never be opted into. I heard what he said: he clearly would not want it to be. I suspect there may be a bit of coalition politics behind this, so I will not go down that route now. I hope that that will be resolved and that we will effectively find that this directive does not apply at any time. The Government’s estimates of the costs of an opt-in decision to the police and criminal justice system, and the costs of changes in domestic legislation in the context of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, are also relevant considerations.
Finally, Members should be aware that the Committee has expressed the view that the Government should not opt into the proposal in the directive on legal aid for two reasons. First, article 5(2) is premised on the directive on access to a lawyer, into which the United Kingdom has not yet opted. Secondly, the proposal would impose both a financial and a regulatory burden on the United Kingdom.
My function in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee is to set out the parameters and, in some detail, the Committee’s reasons for reaching its conclusions. I cannot say how delighted we are that the Government agree with us. I think that everyone’s concerns have been dealt with, and I therefore have no more to say on the subject—at any rate, for the time being.
Chris Grayling
I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. I am delighted to discover that there is a consensus across the House on the approach that we have recommended, although it seems not to include the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
We heard some interesting contributions. Having quoted from comments that he made two years ago in the Law Society Gazette, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) compared regime change in the Ministry of Justice to regime change in Crimea, which may be considered to have been a slight exaggeration. He then agreed with us, although I note that he did not answer my question about whether he shared our concern about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the implications for our own legal position of signing up to measures of this kind, given that, if we do so, jurisdiction will pass from our courts to the ECJ.
I apologise to the three Select Committees for the delays that have occurred, but they will understand that, in this day and age, there are a number of debates to be had—in this Parliament, in Brussels, and sometimes in Government—before we finally reach a decision that can be presented to the House. I will always endeavour to ensure that information is given to Committees in a timely way, but I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that it is better to have the right decision than to have an early decision.
Sir Alan Beith
That is true, but it is better still if, rather than our waiting until the Government have finally formed a view, the support and help of Committees is obtained at an early stage in the process.
Chris Grayling
I entirely accept that. We will try to ensure that we do what we can to supply the right information to Committees in the future.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the valuable point that we should be cautious about the issue of jurisdictions. That is what lies behind my concern about measures such as these. It is important to understand that an opt-in is not—as was implied by the hon. Member for Swansea West—a simple process. It is not just about setting an example to the rest of Europe. It is about accepting the jurisdiction of an international court in regard to important areas of law. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), there is no right of appeal following a ruling from the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friend also rightly observed that our judiciary are increasingly concerned about the role of international courts. On a number of occasions recently, they themselves have suggested that decisions that should be made in our courts and our Parliament are now being dealt with on the international stage. It is clear that that is causing some discomfort to at least some of them.
Geraint Davies
Will the Justice Secretary confirm that the Government are still negotiating on the issues of children’s rights in courts and legal aid, and that those negotiations have not been stonewalled?
Chris Grayling
We have told our European partners—and will do so again if the House approves the motion tonight—that we will not take part in negotiations on the first and third directives, on the presumption of innocence and on legal aid. We will say up front that we do not intend to opt in, either now or in the future. That is a decision that has been agreed across Government, and one that we do not intend to reverse. We will provide observers for the negotiations, but they will not participate in detailed negotiations. As I said, on the second directive involving children we do not intend to opt in; we will indicate that up front. We will participate in the negotiations in case, although it is unlikely, something emerges that this House may want to consider again, but it remains the Government’s position that we do not expect, nor want, to have to opt into the directive, but we will sit around the table while it is negotiated.
There is clearly a broader issue here about minimum standards measures. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) pointed out very articulately, what we must understand is that we have a different legal system from the rest of the European Union. The hon. Member for Hammersmith made the same point. If we accept minimum standards measures, step by step they take away the ability of this Parliament and of our courts to shape our justice system. If we decide on any occasion to opt into such a measure, it is of paramount importance that we understand the implications of doing so.
Mr Cash
To add to that point, the other member states by and large have written constitutions, while we operate by a process of precedent through the common law. In many respects that would change were we to move to a system that enveloped us within a framework of European Union law, which would change the nature of the decision-making process. As my right hon. Friend so accurately says, this is a huge change because it is about jurisdiction, interpretation and the rights of the individuals who are affected.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why I fundamentally disagree with the Commissioner who set out her vision a few days ago for a European common justice area by 2020. I do not believe that is right for this country. I believe there are areas where it is important to collaborate with our partners in fighting international organised crime, but I do not want to see our justice system, which commands respect around the world and brings extensive legal business to London, subsumed into something that is Europeanised. That is why I draw a very clear line, in consideration of European measures, between those that are essential in dealing with the real issues of cross-border crime and those that are about subsuming our system into common processes. I am thinking in particular about the presumption of innocence aspect, which to my mind intrudes clearly into the ways of working in our courts. I am pretty confident that a large part of our judiciary would not wish to see the processes they follow each day shaped by decision making at European Union level.
I am very clear that I do not want the UK to be part of these measures. I am glad to have received the support I have in the House tonight. I hope that the House will endorse the approach that we are taking to keep us outside the three measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings, No. 17633/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, No. 17642/13, a Commission Recommendation on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, and No. 17635/13 and Addenda 1 to 3, a draft Directive on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings; and agrees with the Government that the UK should not exercise the opt-in to these measures.
Business without Debate
Committees
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 and 6 together.
Ordered,
Education
That Chris Skidmore be discharged from the Education Committee and Caroline Nokes be added.
Environmental audit
That Chris Evans be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Mike Kane be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
The proposed closure of Crown Post Offices in Anglesey (Ynys Môn)
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is with great pleasure that I present this petition signed by over 3,000 of my constituents. In 2009 Post Office Ltd made it clear that it had no intention to relocate or outsource its services from the two Crown post offices on Anglesey as no other suitable major retail brand existed on the high streets. In the closure programme of sub-post offices, the importance of the Crown offices was highlighted due to their location and integration with other services. This situation has not changed.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of Anglesey,
Declares that they wish to preserve the Crown Post Office in both Holyhead and Llangefni to retain the safety, convenience and services of this vital resource to the island’s community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons protect both Crown Post Offices from closure and from potential franchising.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001333]
Defence in Scotland after 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have secured this important debate. Today is an important landmark for all of us in the United Kingdom as we head towards the referendum—it will take place in exactly six months. In exactly six months’ time, many people here in the Chamber and elsewhere will be knocking on doors, getting out the vote for our fellow Scots as they make a huge and life-changing decision about the future of our country and our nation.
One great problem we have is that we simply do not have enough information from the nationalists about what a future Scotland would be like in respect of a range of issues, not least defence. Disappointingly, not one Scottish National party Member could be bothered to turn up this evening, despite having had notice of this debate. That might be because they are too scared to come to defend their plans or because they do not yet know what their plans would be in an independent Scotland. I wish briefly to discuss three areas: my constituency, the Rosyth dockyard and the wider west Fife defence footprint; the wider impact on the defence industry across Scotland; and how Scotland would defend itself after a yes vote on 18 September.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very familiar with Scotland and, I am sure, with west Fife. You will know that the Rosyth dockyard is still the largest private employer in west Fife, employing about 2,800 people, the vast bulk of whom are working on the assembly of the two new aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. That has been a long-standing project, one that we are particularly proud of in west Fife; we are the home of the construction of the Royal Navy’s new flagships. I see the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) in her place and, obviously, Portsmouth will be the home of the carriers once they enter service.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As he will be aware, I was invited to Rosyth by Babcock Marine and witnessed the impressive building of the new aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth. I also saw, in the basin, the shells of seven former nuclear submarines, which still have some contamination. Apparently they are to be dismantled from 2016 onwards, but has he had any indication as to who will bear the financial responsibility for dismantling them and cleaning up the mess?
Thomas Docherty
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose own constituency has a very strong defence footprint with Raytheon, which I might mention later. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the seven decommissioned nuclear hulks, which are lashed against the wall in the basin, as it is unclear whose responsibility they would be if Scotland were independent. My understanding is that if they are determined to be fixed now in Rosyth, they would pass as a liability to the Scottish Government. However, if we believe they are part of the overall movable pool, a fraction of the 17 decommissioned submarines we have in the UK would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Either way, the Scottish Government would be stuck with a clean-up to do and would not know how to go about doing it. My hon. Friend is entirely right to have raised the subject. I hope that we can get some idea from Ministers in the two Governments over the next six months about how such ambiguity might be resolved before the referendum.
On the broader point about the two carriers, it is obvious that Portsmouth will be their home and the location in which their routine maintenance will be carried out. That is the correct decision. I remember one of the earliest times that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North and I debated that maintenance with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in November 2010. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has responsibility for defence procurement, said yesterday at Defence questions, Rosyth is clearly in prime position to provide deep maintenance. Babcock’s business plan is based on that assumption.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I believe that there will be many such debates over the coming weeks and months about Scotland’s future after the referendum in September 2014. Is he as alarmed as I am by the recent press release by Babcock and the trade unions at Rosyth, which stated that without defence contracts, it would be impossible to sustain Babcock’s presence, and therefore its work force, in Rosyth?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is entirely correct. He is as perceptive as ever, because I was about to come to that point. Without that deep maintenance work, the Babcock business case is destroyed. Last week, Babcock’s industrial unions warned that 800 job losses would result. I pay tribute to the full-time convener, Raymond Duguid—one of my hon. Friend’s constituents—for his work and for the productive way in which the work force at Rosyth dockyard engage with the management. They are all on the same side; they all want to serve the customer, the nation and the Royal Navy. They have a shared concern, which it is important to highlight. Again, it is disappointing that not one SNP Member could be bothered to turn up for this important debate.
The work force and management have made it clear that there will be significant job losses, which will place the long-term viability of the yard under threat. I hope that the Minister will set out the Ministry of Defence’s vision for the future of the defence industry in West Fife. In the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, there is a BAE Systems plant at Hillend, which makes parts for the Typhoon aircraft. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) has Raytheon, a significant employer, in his constituency.
I commend the work of the House of Commons Defence and Scottish Affairs Committees, which have both looked at the implications of independence. Both Committees’ reports are useful, worthy and thoughtful pieces of work, and it is fair to say that they have reached similar conclusions. Many high-tech, specialised electronics companies such as BAE Systems and Raytheon would not be able to stay in Scotland unless specific guarantees were provided to the rest of the UK Government. So far, it has been clear from the SNP’s utterances that that is unlikely to happen. At a time when we are all pulling together and trying to secure, for example, new orders for the Typhoon in the middle east—we still hold out hope that we will also be successful in India and in Europe—it is slightly bizarre that the SNP is not engaging in a positive manner to help to secure those jobs in Scotland.
We cannot possibly discuss industrial strategy in Scotland without talking about the future of the Clyde. Incredibly difficult decisions had to be made, as part of the terms of business agreement, about the future of Portsmouth and the Clyde. I know how passionate people on the south coast are about the region’s, I think, 400-year history of shipbuilding, but the decision has been made to build the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate on the Clyde. We are seeing that arrangement developing, with the process of ensuring that Scotstoun, in particular, is ready to take on the work.
The SNP’s White Paper is a load of fiction. It says not only that an independent Scotland would buy the Type 26 but that the rest of the United Kingdom would build its Type 26s in Scotland.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Is he aware that the commercial sector has expressed considerable interest in building ships in Portsmouth? We have proved that we can compete not only with Scotland but with Dubai and with other shipyards around the world. Our shipyard facility and a skilled work force would stand ready to pick up orders for offshore patrol vessels, Type 26s and beyond if Scotland became a foreign country, as we would clearly wish to retain our sovereign capability.
Thomas Docherty
I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates something that the SNP will not acknowledge—namely, that there are and will continue to be alternatives to the Clyde. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that English MPs with shipyards in their constituencies would simply say to the Ministry of Defence, “Go on, give that multi-million pound order to another country, even though we have pressing needs in our own yards.” There is no way that English MPs would do that, be they in Plymouth, Appledore, Portsmouth or Barrow—or, indeed, on Tyneside. And how could we forget the Jarrow yard or the Birkenhead yard? There is no shortage of space for these construction contracts.
Mr McKenzie
Speaking as one who represents a constituency on the banks of the Clyde, I can tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) that there were no celebrations there when Portsmouth was losing out and the Clyde was gaining. There is a connection and a deep sympathy between all the shipbuilding industries around the country.
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was not a day of celebration. There are genuine ties between the various yards. They share a common union body—the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions—and they campaign together to protect and sustain this crucial industry, which is in our national interest.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Harland and Wolff in Belfast does not have the capacity to produce ships, as it has diversified into the oilfield sector, but there is capability there. We very much want to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to place on record that we pledge our yards to be used in the service of the Royal Navy.
Thomas Docherty
There is obviously no shortage of firms to carry out this work. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) is in the Chamber. He was gracious enough to take me along to see a company in his constituency, Vector Aerospace. He has been a real champion of that company. It is inconceivable to me that the British Army and the Royal Air Force would continue to send Chinook parts to Perthshire for repair, if Perthshire were to be in a foreign country, when they could have the work done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I say again that it is disappointing that not one SNP Member is here tonight. Perhaps that is because they are fearties, but they should be here to make their case, and to explain to the people of Scotland what the implications of independence are for defence and the defence industries.
I have said quite a lot about manufacturing, so I shall turn now to the so-called Scottish defence force. Over the past 12 to 18 months we have seen the SNP changing its position and rewriting documents. It went from being outside NATO and completely opposed to it, to being a full member, without even having to apply. It then changed its policy again. When the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, appeared before the Defence Committee last July, he admitted that an independent Scotland would have to apply for NATO membership. That was then flatly contradicted by Alex Salmond, who continues to put around the lie that somehow Scotland would automatically be a member of NATO. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what he thinks about those contradictory positions. SNP Ministers say one thing when they are under oath in front of a Select Committee and then say something completely different when they are safely back in Scotland and they think that no one is paying attention to them.
There are some serious concerns about the ability of Scotland to defend itself given the SNP’s plans. It was quite clear from when the Defence Committee took evidence that, in order to maintain simple air defences, Scotland would need, according to Air Marshal Iain McNicol, the equivalent of two squadrons of Typhoon aircraft. The SNP now claims that it would inherit a number of aircraft from the Royal Air Force. That is based on the argument, with which I have a huge amount of sympathy, that that is what happened in Czechoslovakia when it broke up. A proportion of aircraft went to the Czech Republic and a proportion to the Slovak Republic. Even under the most generous of assumptions—the Ministry of Defence has done the figures and they were used by the Secretary of State last year—Scotland would have only eight Typhoon aircraft. It would have to spend more than £1 billion purchasing additional Typhoons.
The same is true with regard to the Royal Navy. Again, the SNP is making contradictory statements. It claims in its party policy that it wants a squadron of submarines, yet in its White Paper, there was no mention of submarines. Perhaps like many other SNP policies, that has sunk beneath the waves.
The SNP has also claimed that it would need 15,000 regular personnel. Although the Minister and I may disagree on aspects of the strategic defence and security review, I am sure that we agree on the correct way of approaching a defence policy. One needs to set out strategic aims and threats, what posture needs to be adopted and what personnel and equipment numbers are needed to effect that posture. Then one needs to put together the money. What the SNP has done is to pick a random figure of 15,000. At no point has it provided any coherent explanation as to what it is, nor has it explained from where the troops would be recruited. Where would these air men and women, sailors and soldiers come from? The SNP claims that it is entitled to those members of the armed forces who have some sort of Scottish qualification.
Mr McKenzie
Is the SNP not also claiming that, in order to keep the same level of work force at Faslane, it would base the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in that area—putting all its eggs in one basket? How defensive is that?
Thomas Docherty
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The SNP proposes to put its joint headquarters command for the three services at Faslane. The best and most optimistic estimate that the Defence Committee was able to make of the total headcount of the conventional Navy that the SNP would create under the joint headquarters command is that it would only, at most, provide approximately 4,500 personnel at Faslane, compared with the 8,000 who are there now. That force will get bigger over the next year as the Astute-class moves to Faslane. The SNP’s numbers just do not add up.
The other point that has not been touched on is training. If we were to assume that within the 15,000 head count, about 8,000 to 10,000 were Army, the SNP would need approximately 200 officer cadets every year to populate its officer corps.
Sandhurst takes only 120 international students a year at the moment and the SNP is silent on where its officers will be trained. Are we going to see “MacSandhurst” in the Glen? Are we going to see “MacDartmouth” or “MacCranwell”? Will the SNP come back to the Minister after independence begging for places at Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell? Those are the unanswered questions.
Finally, on the issue of cap badges, the SNP claims that it is entitled to all the Scottish regiments but has never quite explained what it means by a Scottish regiment. The 1st Foot and the Blues and Royals might disagree, but arguably the oldest regiment in the British Army is the Coldstream Guards. Coldstream is a fine Borders town only a few miles from England from which General Monck set off to restore the monarchy in 1660, hence its name being given to the guards unit formed in the new army. It would appear that the SNP would argue that it is entitled to the Coldstream Guards, except that the Coldstream Guards predate the British Army as they date from 1660. I know that I am in a room of knowledgeable historians who would all be able to tell the House that they were part of King Charles II’s English army. Even at that simple level, the SNP has no basic understanding of what a Scottish regiment is.
What happens to all those Scots who are serving in other regiments? They might not wish to come back to the Scottish defence force. What will happen to those men and women who are serving in so-called Scottish units who are not lucky enough to be from Scotland? What will happen to our fine Fijians? We have the finest Fijians in the Scottish battalions. Would they be forced to adopt the Scottish defence force?
In short and in conclusion, the SNP’s plans are incoherent, they do not add up and they are dishonest. The SNP owes it to the people of Scotland to set out the reality before 18 September so that people can make a choice. Tonight, young, brave Scotsmen and women are serving in the armed forces around the world—in Afghanistan, the Falklands or elsewhere. I hope we will always remember how proud they are to serve our nation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and I thank the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) for introducing it. He made his case very clearly. When I became aware of the debate, I sought the permission of the hon. Gentleman and of the Minister to contribute.
There can be few Members in the Chamber who do not know where I stand on independence. My designation says it all: I am a Democratic Unionist, with a greater emphasis on the Unionist as I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Together we are stronger and better as a nation. The four nations come together as one. I always think of that when I walk into Central Lobby and see the four flags: we are all together, four flags and four nations as one, in Central Lobby in the centre of the greatest democratic process in the world, here at Westminster. It gives me great pride to walk through the door and have the opportunity and privilege of seeing that.
I am very fond of my Scottish colleagues. They know that, and I agree with them on many issues. I am disappointed that they are not in the Chamber tonight. I wish they were, as I would be keen to hear their views.
My ideal applies also to the Scottish question and the reason is clear: the Union is in all our best interests, including that of the Scots. Many issues have been flagged up that emphasise the difficulties with independence, and the one that is of great concern to me is defence, and in this debate we are considering defence in Scotland after 2014. Although I support the devolution of most matters and believe that the regional Assemblies should have power, I have always held that decisions on matters of national security should be taken at the national level. That is why they are taken in Westminster.
The second world war showed the difficulties of a nation sharing a land border with a nation that is not on its side. We in Northern Ireland know that better than any others. The actions of the Republic of Ireland in its neutral stance to Germany were not helpful to those suffering the Belfast blitz bombings. The strength of mainland Great Britain lies in the fact that it is an island, united in core principles and values, and defence is a major part of that.
Jim Shannon
The first time I was interrupted in that way I thought that my chance to speak was over, but now I know the process and I am pleased to be able to continue my contribution.
I do not always agree with Government reports or policies. I agree with many things, but not with everything, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware. But I read with great interest the report “Scotland analysis: Defence”. It states:
“In the event of a vote in favour of leaving the UK, in the eyes of the world and in law, Scotland would become an entirely new state. If Scotland were to become independent, therefore, it would leave the UK and its existing arrangements, and would need to establish its own defence arrangements as part of forming a new state.”
That is a frightening aspect, not simply for the rest of the United Kingdom but for Scotland itself.
As I said earlier, I am fond of the Scottish nationalists. I have affection for them and we agree on many things. We disagree intensely on their position on independence. I am always reminded of the film “Braveheart” in which that well-known Scotsman Mel Gibson plays the lead role. Let us be honest: if it were as bad as it was then, with the English stealing their land, burning down their houses and abusing their ladies, I would be the first to jump to their support. But it is not. We are in a different situation. We are in a democratic process, and we as nations together in the United Kingdom are better for being united.
With that mind, I will read a further section of the report. Hon. Members will forgive me if they are fully aware of the information, but it is important to repeat it so that the people of Scotland can be fully aware of all the real issues and not get caught up in the dream that independence will mean that they can pick and choose how involved they will be in defence, in the currency or in any other matter. There seems to be that perception. The hon. Gentleman made it clear. The Scottish nationalists are not here to put forward their case and we wonder why. Is it because they are not sure what their case is? Is it because they do not want to deal with the head over heart issues, of which this is one?
The report states:
“Scotland is home to major bases for critical UK military capabilities and other essential facilities, including for military training and testing. As at 1 July 2013, there were 11,100 Regular Armed Forces (7.5% of the UK total) and 4,000 MOD civilian personnel (7.6% of the UK total), from across the UK and beyond, at around 50 MOD sites throughout Scotland, as well as an estimated 2,200 trained Volunteer Reserves (10.3% of the UK total). There are also an estimated 11,500 Cadets (85% of the UK total).”
I am honoured to speak in this House on behalf of the Northern Ireland cadets. It continues:
“Although defence reforms mean that the overall number of Regular Armed forces personnel across the UK is decreasing, by 2020 the number in Scotland is set to increase to 12,500 (8.8% of the UK total).” —
a rise of 1.3%.
“And as part of the UK Government’s plans to increase the size of the Reserve Forces, by 2018 there will be an estimated 4,250 trained volunteer Reserves in Scotland (about 12% of the UK total).”
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am most grateful to my colleague from the neighbouring constituency of Strangford for taking an intervention. The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of companies from Northern Ireland provide essential maintenance for the MOD in Scotland. Has he had an opportunity to speak to any of the senior management of those companies to ascertain their views about the proposed ridiculous decision to become independent in Scotland?
Jim Shannon
I have not had that opportunity personally, but I have through third parties. I know that my friend and colleague, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), has businesses in her constituency that have clearly told her and their staff that Scottish independence would have a detrimental impact on them, and some of my constituents work for those companies as well.
The report continues:
“On current UK Government plans, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of three Royal Navy main bases, including all its submarines, one of the British Army’s seven Adaptable Force Brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast jet main operating bases.”
That is the role Scotland can play in defending the whole of the United Kingdom— Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland: all of us.
Mr McKenzie
I know that the hon. Gentleman spoke in the recent debate on cyber-security. We know about the many hard, physical aspects of defence, but cyber-security is a growing area of concern that is consuming more and more time, resources and money. He spoke at great length and with great knowledge about the subject, so I wonder whether he would care to devote a part of his speech to it today and underline the cost implications and the implications for a country that would not have the same level of defence in its interactions in the cyber world.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Cyber-security is clearly an important area. Many Members contributed to that debate, and I am no more knowledgeable on the matter that anyone else, but I understand its importance and the potential costs. There is a bigger picture, and I feel that the Scottish National party has unfortunately not taken it into consideration in its quest for the referendum. It must do so very honestly and very quickly.
The defence issue for Scotland is massive. To me, it fully underlines the need for the Union. However, personnel issues must be considered. On a more personal level, the Army base at Ballykinler, just outside my constituency, is due to lose some of its regiment, with the knock-on effect that 300 jobs in the area are at stake. However, the Ministry of Defence has assured me that the base will remain open. That follows lobbying by Members of Parliament and the local council. If that was to be replicated across Scotland, how many jobs would be lost? If Northern Ireland was to become independent—thank the Lord it will not, so long as the people of Northern Ireland have the decision to stay in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—those jobs would be lost.
My parliamentary aide has a friend who is based in Scotland in the Scots Guards, along with her husband. She has already said that, should Scotland become independent, she will transfer to England, because she feels that there would not be the capacity for job security and that the uncertainly for her and her husband would be too great. That is what my constituents are telling me. That will be replicated many times if Scotland becomes independent. There is the potential that it will lose many good men and women who are seasoned officers. How much will that weaken its defences?
In conclusion, we are very fortunate to have the contribution that our Scots brothers and sisters make in all the services—the Air Force, the Royal Navy and the British Army. We are very pleased to have them as comrades in arms. What is very clear, however, is this: we are better together, safer together and stronger together, and together we must remain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I start by paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces, particularly those serving overseas, and particularly, if non-Scots will allow me on this occasion, the men and women from Scotland who serve so gallantly in our armed forces, as they have done since the Act of Union and as I firmly believe they will continue to do.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on giving us this opportunity to debate defence in Scotland after 2014, when he and I sincerely hope it will be, as it is now, part of the United Kingdom. I also congratulate him on his timeliness in holding the debate, because, as he said, today is exactly six months from the date on which the referendum will be held—an extremely important date for all of us in the United Kingdom, whether we live in Scotland or not.
May I lay my cards on the table? Despite my Scottish antecedents, I had the disadvantage of being born English, and I represent an English constituency, but I am British first, and I believe passionately in the Union that has made this country so much greater than the sum of its parts. I cannot begin to think of a country that is split up in the way envisaged by the Scottish National party, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that that party did not see fit to be represented this evening at all.
The issue of defence is particularly important for the people considering how to vote, because, unlike things such as free child care, it is most certainly not devolved. In other words, this issue will be determined on 18 September. It is the prime duty of the Government of any state to safeguard national security and to protect their people from threats internal and external. That is why pages 232 to 251 of the Scottish Government’s 649-page tome are so very disappointing—19 pages of disappointment.
Her Majesty’s Government believe that people in Scotland will choose to stay part of the UK. We will continue to argue the case for the close-knit family that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From a defence perspective, the arguments for Scotland remaining in the UK are overwhelming. The UK’s armed forces are counted among the world’s very best. Our integrated approach to defence and security provides the best possible protection for all parts of the UK, underpinning our international influence and sustaining our defence industry. I want Scotland to continue to contribute to, and benefit from, the full range of UK defence capabilities, including our extensive defence engagement, which project influence, make us a force for good, and maintain competitive advantage.
Lindsay Roy
May I assure the Minister that I am not scaremongering but posing a question put to me by people who work at Raytheon, a company that employs 600 people in my constituency? They are asking whether there is an issue about the confidential contracts that are engaged in between the parent company in the USA and Raytheon UK, and whether there is any risk to, or uncertainty about, their jobs in the future.
Dr Murrison
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. In fact, I have been flicking through the press cuttings for today which had something to say on the matter. The Scottish edition of The Times has the headline, “Businesses get ready to leave in event of independence vote”. The Scottish edition of the Daily Mail says, “An uncertain future is our biggest worry, say business bosses”. The Herald says, “Business leaders ‘concerned about uncertainty over referendum’”. I do not think it needs me to say what that all adds up to. Taken with the remarks of business leaders from all sectors currently, and I suspect increasingly as we approach 18 September, it means that our concerns over jobs in Scotland in the event of independence are mounting almost by the day. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as the Member of Parliament for an area that depends heavily on our defence industry, will feel extremely strongly about this and will continue to make representations on it over the next six months.
Thomas Docherty
Further to that point and the point the Minister made about that work of fiction, the Scottish White Paper, was he as surprised as I was that the only mention of Rosyth in the whole document was as a possible future supplementary naval base? There is no mention at all about ship maintenance. Would he care to speculate on why the SNP would do that?
Dr Murrison
I have given up speculating about the SNP, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is somewhat odd, even in the simple 19 pages on defence in this remarkable 649-page document, that Rosyth should feature so poorly. That is truly remarkable and I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are entitled to draw their own conclusions from that.
I believe that Scotland should continue to benefit from every pound spent on UK defence. We of course have one of the largest budgets in the world at £33.5 billion this year. The £2.5 billion grudgingly conceded by Mr Salmond for both defence and security simply pales in comparison.
As part of the UK, Scotland will continue, as it has done for 300 years, to play an integral part in all aspects of UK defence. As UK citizens, Scots will continue to be employed in world-class armed forces, and Scotland will continue to be home to critical high-end military capabilities across the defence piece. In fact, on our current plans, the defence presence in Scotland will increase over the coming years. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of the Royal Navy’s main bases, including all of its submarines—I will come back to submarines in a moment—as well as to one of the British Army’s seven adaptable force brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast-jet main operating bases.
At a time when the overall number of our regular armed forces personnel is necessarily decreasing, the number based in Scotland is set to increase from about 11,000 now to 12,500 by 2020, which is about 8.8% of the UK total.
UK defence generates economic benefits for communities throughout Scotland though jobs, contracts and support services. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde is the biggest employment site in Scotland, with about 6,700 military and civilian jobs, increasing to 8,200 by 2022.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has eloquently described the importance of defence to the east coast, and every constituency in Scotland has people whose livelihoods depend on defence and that are subsequently at risk.
Scotland, as part of the UK, will continue to benefit from a strong, established global network of international relationships and alliances that would be unavailable to an independent Scotland, at best for years and possibly indefinitely.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his strong and robust response to the debate. During her intervention on me earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) outlined the importance of defence contracts to many businesses in Northern Ireland as well. The ripples caused by independence would affect not just Scotland, but Northern Ireland.
Dr Murrison
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has anticipated my next point, which is that the UK has geopolitical influence that few states of a similar size can match. That influence would be put at risk in a dramatic way were this country to be split in two. Together, undoubtedly we punch well above our weight. Apart, we would certainly be diminished, with substantial geopolitical consequences that would reach far beyond these shores. It is interesting that many of our partners are watching this situation very closely indeed—even more closely, I have to say, than many of our own citizens on these islands—because they fully understand what is at stake in September.
Because we are together, the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of the European Union and a founder member of NATO. It is central to the “Five Eyes” community. The benefits for Scotland’s defence industry as part of the UK are especially important to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, as he has pointed out.
The scale of our defence spending is a key factor in sustaining those indigenous defence industries. The Ministry of Defence spent more than £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. Over the 10 years from 2012-13, it will spend almost £160 billion on new equipment and data systems. That spending sustains a substantial industrial footprint in Scotland, from complex warships to the latest high-tech innovations in aerospace engineering, defence electronics and electro-optical systems in companies based throughout the country, employing thousands of people in high-skill and relatively high-salary positions. Many of our prime contractors—Babcock, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Selex ES, Thales, Raytheon and QinetiQ—have sites in Scotland. The defence sector in Scotland employs about 12,600 people, with 4,000 jobs in Scottish shipyards being directly linked to the aircraft carrier programme alone.
The SNP may be able to marshal arguments in support of independence, beyond its cynical offer of free child care, but even its ex-parliamentary candidate Colonel Stuart Crawford asked rhetorically whether the Scottish Government White Paper would provide at least some answers. In the event, we were left little the wiser from its 649 pages.
John Swinney’s secret admission that his defence budget would be less than the £2.5 billion asserted by the SNP is interesting, but let us generously assume that that is the figure. That would be for both defence and security, presumably including intelligence and cyber, but it is only about 7% of the UK’s combined budgets for defence, intelligence and cyber, and it is significantly less than Scotland’s population share—if we are counting, which we are not.
It is not clear what level of security and protection the £2.5 billion would provide, but it would for sure be less than Denmark’s or Norway’s. The SNP plans are simply unaffordable, and I can only conclude that it would end up with its starting point of 7,500 soldiers. So much for restoring all Scotland’s historic regiments. Confounding Colonel Crawford’s hopes, the White Paper seems to offer more questions than answers.
It is clear that an independent Scottish state would have to wait in line for membership of the international organisations that the Scottish Government have hitherto believed Scotland would automatically join. If it wished to be a member of NATO, all 28 member states would need to agree unanimously to its accession, which is hardly likely, given the Scottish Government’s attitude to the strategic nuclear deterrent that lies at the very heart of the alliance’s strategic concept. It seems unlikely that the “Five Eyes” community would really bang on the door of a newly independent Scotland.
Companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place, or to compete domestically, for national security reasons under article 346. All our complex warships are designed and built within the UK for reasons of national security, so as a foreign country, Scotland would no longer be eligible. Where companies in Scotland could continue to compete, they would be bidding in a cut-throat international market dominated by major economic powers. The sustainability of the defence industry in Scotland and the thousands of jobs that depend on it would therefore be cause for considerable concern.
The Scottish Government have shown a little bit of leg in the 19 pages on defence in their 649-page doorstopper, but there is no link between their defence wish list and the budget proposed to cover it. Their £2.5 billion—remember that that is our generous assessment—would be nowhere near enough to pay for their stated requirement and, like the hon. Gentleman, who is eagle-eyed, I notice that the figure does not cover their 2012 plans for conventional submarines, which were not mentioned in the following year’s White Paper. The Scottish Government say that they would have expensive platforms, such as Type 26 frigates, Typhoon jets and maritime patrol aircraft, and presumably the wherewithal to process and act on the data that MPAs generate, and would continue to operate all current major military bases, but the sums do not add up.
That is not to suggest that an independent Scotland could not build a defence force. Of course it could. However, what the Scottish Government are saying about what that force would be like is simply not credible—it is incredible. Whatever defence force an independent Scotland could develop, it would not come close to replicating the level of defence and security that comes from being part of the UK, which defends the country not on a regional basis, but as a whole.
Thomas Docherty
The Minister is making a compelling speech. I do not know whether he has had the chance to look at the evidence of Air Vice-Marshal Nicholl to the Defence Committee. He said that if he were to start again as a young, aspiring pilot, he would not wish to join a separate Scottish air force, because he would not have the same opportunities that he had in the Royal Air Force. It was a Scot who said that. Does the Minister agree that a problem for the SNP is how it would recruit people? Why would people want to serve in the services if there were such restricted opportunities?
Dr Murrison
We have to imagine what Scotland’s defence force would look like with £2.5 billion or less. It would be very small indeed. It follows that the high-tech, high-end capability to which I have referred will simply not be available in Scotland. It seems inconceivable that the sort of men and women who join our armed forces would be attracted to such a proposition. I fear that the air vice-marshal is correct in his assertion. I hope that people in Scotland who are tempted by a career in the armed forces are not faced with the conundrum of whether to join a Scottish defence force or the armed forces of the United Kingdom. That would be a great pity for them and, potentially, a huge waste of talent. Traditionally, Scotland has provided some of the very best people in our armed forces. The loss to defence in this country in the event that Scotland went independent would be felt not least in the manpower and capabilities that those men and women provide.
Scotland’s defence and the UK’s best interests will be served by a strong no vote on 18 September. I suspect that the SNP knows that and would dearly like to park defence and security, so that it can focus on things like free child care, which it already has the power to grant, even if that will be pre-empted by tomorrow’s statement. I do not think that it is by chance that there are no SNP Members here tonight. They are concerned about their defence and security offer to the voters of Scotland on 18 September and would like to talk about something else. I do not intend to let the Scottish Government get away with their obfuscation and litany of half-truths on one of the major determinants of nationhood. My helpful advice to the SNP—I do try to be helpful where I can—is to admit that Scotland’s defence and its defence industry would be a casualty of independence and, in the six months remaining to it, to campaign on something else.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Teaching Assistants
(10 years, 9 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
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Howarth, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.
The main reason I sought to become a Member of this House was to see that children had opportunities available to them, enabling them to develop, so I am delighted to have secured today’s debate on the importance of teaching assistants to our children and the whole school system. They add tremendous value to classrooms throughout the country. I hope to be able to counter the attitude of some, which is that they are a high-cost, low-return intervention. I want this House to celebrate their achievements and recognise the positive role they play in developing our children’s future.
I hope to emphasise the huge potential and promise of teaching assistants in improving and enriching educational outcomes, because these valuable assets are currently undervalued, underpaid and their contributions are largely unrecognised. I hope that this debate sets the record straight on this matter, once and for all.
Like many hon. Members present, I have long argued that those teaching our young people and assisting their learning are of the greatest importance to all our lives. That is why I not only supported the call for our teachers to be properly trained and qualified, but tabled early-day motion 753 in November, to recognise the immense value teaching assistants bring to classrooms and schools throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is right; there is a difference between teachers and teachers’ assistants. There is no intention that teachers’ assistants should replace teachers—we always have to make that clear, because that is a common misapprehension—but, equally, we can value them by giving them better training as well.
Alex Cunningham
I agree with my hon. Friend and will, later in my speech, develop the point about the importance of teaching assistants assisting and teachers teaching.
I am in no doubt that we need great teachers at all levels of learning, each one equipped to deliver a modern education, based on an up-to-date understanding of developments in teaching practice, specific subject knowledge and the latest in educational tools and technology. However, a report from Reform in 2010 took this argument further—much too far, I would argue—when it suggested that Ministers should remove
“the various Government interventions into the cost and size of the teaching workforce”
to increase accountability of schools to parents and to strengthen management and performance. The report went on to contend that a natural consequence of that would be
“a fall in the number of teaching assistants, since the value of the rapid growth in their numbers it claimed, is not supported by the research evidence”.
To give some background to today’s debate, a significant increase in teaching assistants resulted from the 2003 workload agreement in England and Wales—an effort by the previous Labour Government to raise standards in schools.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this important debate.
Teaching assistants are an invaluable asset to youngsters on the autistic spectrum. What would be the likely impact in classrooms of a diminution in the number of people who are involved in that role and of those involved in their training and development?
Alex Cunningham
I have been amazed by somebody working with children with special needs; I will give that example later. Those people play a vital role and children with special needs in particular would suffer directly as a result of any reduction.
The aim of the workload agreement was simple: to allow teachers to teach. To do this, the agreement sought to lessen pressure on teachers by reducing the administrative bureaucracy and cutting teachers’ hours through the creation of new and expanded school support roles, including teaching assistants and higher level teaching assistants, and providing extra resource and high-level support for teachers.
Teaching assistants now make up more than a quarter of the total school work force in England, with more than 359,000 in classrooms across England alone. The vast majority—almost 250,000—work in primary schools; almost 20% are in secondary schools; and 9% are in special schools. With primary schools spending £2.8 billion on teaching assistants and support staff in 2010-11 and secondary schools spending £1.6 billion during the same period, such support accounts for a large proportion of the annual education budget. It is for precisely this reason that the role and worth of teaching assistants have been in the public spotlight, particularly since questions were raised several years ago about the value for money that they provide.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend’s debate is critically important. Many of us have been concerned that the pressure on budgets will lead to the loss of teaching assistants. Does he note that one of our biggest concerns as a society at the moment is adult literacy and numeracy? Does he recognise the research from the Education Endowment Foundation, which highlighted the fact that teaching assistants, used effectively, can play a particularly important role in developing literacy and numeracy among children?
Alex Cunningham
Yes, that is most certainly the case. Many years ago my wife was a volunteer assistant with adult literacy. I recognise so much the benefit of one-to-one opportunities for children with particular needs, including language and numeracy, who can benefit tremendously if they have that face-to-face contact with a teaching assistant.
The report by the Institute of Education, “Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools”, was surprising, in that it found a negative relationship between the amount of teaching assistant support and academic progress in students. Similarly, Reform’s report also suggested that as much as £1.7 billion could be saved each year, through reducing the costs associated with teaching assistants, and repeatedly contended that teaching assistants
“have a negligible effect on educational outcomes”,
and even claiming that their interventions can
“harm a child’s education”.
However, these findings are very much the result of a Government who focus squarely on resource allocation and productivity per pound spent, rather than on actual educational outcomes and opportunities provided. To put it another way, this is ideologically driven attentiveness to cost at the expense of value. Indeed, several articles last summer reinforced this point. A piece in The Sunday Times, for instance, appearing in the run-up to the comprehensive spending review, argued that teaching assistants should be cut, as the evidence suggests that they do not have a positive impact on pupil attainment. In a similar fashion, an article in the Daily Mail also reported that officials from the Treasury and the Department for Education were considering mass reductions in the number of teaching assistants working in our classrooms, citing an effort to
“save some of the £4 billion a year spent on them”.
Again, the focus was primarily on finances, with the article suggesting that schools
“could improve value for money by cutting the number of teaching assistants and increasing class sizes”.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Further to the point made earlier with regard to special needs, the special needs schools in my constituency have expressed to me that they could not survive without classroom assistants—teaching assistants—who are invaluable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more effort needs to be made to give them encouragement that there is a career for them and that they may, perhaps, move on to full-time teaching?
Alex Cunningham
It is down to training and the quality of the teaching assistants. If we can help them develop their careers properly, with ongoing professional development—I will mention that later—it will add real value for special needs children and children across the piece.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
Last week, I visited All Saints primary school in Upper Norwood. The head teacher showed me around and introduced me to a group of teaching assistants doing one-to-one remedial work with students who had fallen behind in mathematics. Surely, we should support efforts to improve the performance of our students in maths, given the importance of that subject to our global competitiveness and their future life chances.
Alex Cunningham
That is most certainly the case. It does not matter whether it is maths, English or anything else. If children with a particular need can get that extra attention with a teaching assistant, the results can be positive.
The claims made in both newspaper articles that I mentioned were based on assertions from Reform, which in turn were highly selective in the evidence used. For example, although it is true that the teaching and learning toolkit produced by a collaboration of the Education Endowment Foundation and the Sutton Trust suggests that teaching assistants have a low impact for a high cost, it is important to note that the toolkit also specifies that this judgment is
“based on limited evidence”.
The implication, of course, is that the sentiment should not necessarily be taken at face value, or at least not without some fairly substantial caveats.
Lindsay Roy
As a former head teacher and school inspector, I have direct evidence of the impact on positive discipline and effective learning. Is that not recognised anywhere in the report?
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend has me at a disadvantage. I do not have such detailed knowledge, but discipline is critical. Teaching assistants have a role in that because they are able to contain a child and give them the attention that they need.
The Education Endowment Foundation makes it clear that a simplistic reading of its evidence is decidedly unhelpful. To be sure, the toolkit also specifies that teaching assistants can have a positive impact on academic achievement, but that assessment was not given equal weighting by Reform. The Institute of Education’s research openly criticises the idea of cutting teaching assistants as being
“only based on a partial reading of the evidence”.
The institute says that cutting teaching assistants would
“do more harm than good for students, teachers and schools.”
It is sad when institutions pick and choose what they want from research and distort it to give a particular impression. In fact, the Institute of Education’s original research found that support staff can have a positive effect:
“there is more pupil classroom engagement in the sense that pupils are more on-task and less off-task”
when teaching assistants are in the classroom. If that were not enough, the research confirmed that the results
“were not attributable to pupil characteristics”.
The research also found that the results were not attributable to
“decisions made by TAs.”
Instead, they resulted from
“the way schools and teachers deploy and prepare TAs—factors that are out of TAs’ control”.
The report’s intention seems to have been to generate scaremongering headlines, rather than to address the real issues that affect teaching assistants, which I hope to do today.
Before I continue, it is important that we are clear that “teaching assistant” is something of a catch-all term. Teaching assistants carry out a huge range of responsibilities to support teachers, ranging from administration to face-to-face work with children, and I do not doubt that they form a central cog in the modern education system. Many teaching assistants, however, feel that their contribution to education is poorly understood and undervalued. With Reform’s scaremongering being picked up by the mainstream media, many now fear that Government cutbacks and the need to make savings in departmental budgets will inevitably lead to their role being earmarked for job losses.
Although I understand that the Department for Education does not currently have plans for nationwide reductions in teaching assistant numbers, I cannot imagine that my unofficial reassurances will provide comfort to those who see their role as being directly in the firing line. I am therefore sure that teaching assistants would welcome confirmation from the Minister that no plans exist to axe teaching assistants and other support staff through a centrally driven edict.
There is no doubt that the Government’s plans for the future role and contribution of teaching assistants are in need of clarification. Despite the crucial functions that they fulfil, clarity for vital support staff has been notable by its absence. For much of this Parliament, the Government have remained indifferent to teaching assistants and other support staff, rarely mentioning their roles in documents that detail future policy intentions.
The previous Labour Government legislated for a school support staff negotiating body at the end of the last Parliament, but the body, which was intended to look after the pay and conditions of support staff, was abolished within the first year of the coalition as quangos were indiscriminately eliminated as part of a cost-cutting drive. Similarly, the Government have axed national funding for higher level teaching assistant training and have archived all the national teaching assistant and higher level teaching assistant training resources and guidance, with high-quality training for teaching assistants becoming just another victim of the coalition Government’s austerity package.
On that point, it is worth noting that early-day motion 753 had broad multi-party support, although not a single Conservative Member cared to add their name to the motion recognising the difference that teaching assistants make to the education and support of children in our schools. It is little wonder that stories suggesting staffing cuts are causing anxiety within the education profession.
Last year saw two separate days to celebrate the contribution of teaching assistants in classrooms across the country, and I understand that greetings card manufacturers got in on the act, too, to recognise the value that teaching assistants can add to education. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? Although I am sure that, in many cases, teaching assistants ought to be used more effectively, most contribute very positively to education, which is clearly evident in the best cases.
Mark Fielding, for example, is a teaching assistant from Salford who worked one-to-one with a year-11 pupil who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Rather than working in a class-based environment, Mark helped to transform the pupil’s attainment from predictions of Es in maths and English in November to achieving Cs in June. Similarly, Mark has worked with a group with behavioural problems to raise their opportunities. Many were expected to leave school with no qualifications, yet, after Mark’s interventions, all achieved at least 2 GCSEs at C or above.
Guy Smith from Richmond worked with a year-11 student who was involved in offending behaviour and substance misuse and whose attendance at school was dropping. By attending youth offending team meetings with the pupil and providing support in lessons and with homework, as well as offering a contact to speak about any problems the pupil was having and attending meetings with the pupil’s child and adolescent mental health services staff and social workers, Guy helped the student to achieve 5 GCSEs at A to C. The student is now on a business administration apprenticeship with Richmond upon Thames borough council.
Put simply, there is more to be gained from sensible investment in teaching assistants than there is from running down teaching assistant numbers or from abolishing the role altogether. Our recognition of teaching assistants is long overdue, which is only exacerbated by the recent run of negative publicity that has sullied their good reputation. Although days of celebration and recognition are welcome, we must continue to push for more. We need serious action to confirm and codify the role of teaching assistants in our education system and the functions that they can rightly be expected to undertake, not to mention the remuneration that they can fairly expect, to ensure that their contributions are fully recognised.
I consulted a number of organisations as I prepared this speech, and I well understand why Unison and the GMB, which between them represent the vast bulk of teaching assistants, are anxious about the future for those they represent. With teaching assistants not having the reassurance of a national pay scale, pay varies not only according to geographical location but between and within different school types. That results in great uncertainty for teaching assistants, with terms and conditions that are not readily comparable with others who may be expected to fulfil the same role elsewhere, which can be bad for morale and can potentially leave teaching assistants under-rewarded for their contributions.
Fortunately, school leaders, rather than the Department for Education, are responsible for employing support staff. School leaders have sought to recruit more teaching assistants, despite the Government’s negative agenda, with a 5.7% increase between 2011 and 2012. Some 95% of school leaders say that teaching assistants add real value in schools. In case there is any doubt, Ofsted, which routinely reports on the positive impact of teaching assistants despite not having an official remit for inspecting support staff, looks upon the role of support staff very favourably. For instance, Ofsted’s report last year for Gorringe Park primary school in Surrey reads:
“Teaching assistants are sensitive to pupils’ needs and offer good support and guidance to those who need extra help. Consequently, disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs achieve as well as their classmates and sometimes better”.
That is repeated in schools across the country.
Although I will not go into greater detail, the role of teaching assistants has traditionally been closely connected to our schools’ work with pupils with the highest level of special educational needs in mainstream settings—colleagues alluded to that earlier—in terms of both teaching and inclusion, which must not be overlooked. Largely as a result of the failure specifically to address special educational needs in initial teacher training, teachers have historically not been sufficiently prepared to meet the needs of the pupils who struggle most with learning and engagement. Teaching assistants have taken responsibility by stepping up to the mark in such instances. With reforms that will change how schools address the needs of students with special educational needs due in September, clarification could hardly be better timed.
With schools set to receive additional funding to provide better support for disadvantaged students, it is time that the Government clarified their strategy on teaching assistants, not only on how they are to be funded but on how they are to be trained and qualified to ensure that their contributions have the maximum impact on the education of the young people they help. At the same time, school leaders also need to be clear about the role and purpose they see teaching assistants fulfilling in their schools by defining the contributions that teaching assistants will make to learning. That means initiating specific opportunities for teachers to liaise with teaching assistants in advance of lessons, not only so they know what will be taught but so they are clear on what tasks will be undertaken, their specific responsibilities and the teacher’s expectation of pupils. That happens in many schools, but it needs to happen everywhere.
We must also ensure that teaching assistants are not deployed in inappropriate roles. They are not there to substitute for teachers on a temporary or permanent basis. They are not trained to take a class of 30 children or to prepare detailed lesson plans for a term, and they are not there to help the school stretch the budget by substituting for a teacher, even on the odd day. They are there to assist classroom teachers in helping to enhance the educational achievement of the pupils and to provide that vital one-to-one support that some children need to ensure they reach their full potential. We have to get the roles right, so that teachers teach and teaching assistants assist. We must foster an environment of openness and collaboration if we are to raise standards and rival the best education systems in the world.
Lindsay Roy
Is there not a role for the Government to be a catalyst to share good practice?
Alex Cunningham
There is always a role for the Government to share good practice, and that is why I hope they will define training for teaching assistants across the country.
As with teachers, one key measure that raises standards is promoting continuous professional development throughout a teaching assistant’s career. That will ensure that their knowledge and skills remain at the fore. That level of training and development will allow teaching assistants properly to deliver specific, high-quality teaching interventions to the advantage of teachers and pupils alike, whether that is specialist support for pupils with special needs, administrative support to teachers to ease the pressure or targeted interventions in other areas of learning.
Mr Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is eloquently explaining the many ways that teaching assistants assist teachers in the classroom. One other way they do that is by helping to maintain discipline, which is one of the things that most concerns parents and can create a conducive atmosphere for learning. Does he therefore share my regret that instead of supporting teaching assistants in that important work, the Secretary of State chooses to undermine them?
Alex Cunningham
I certainly do. I hope that when the Minister speaks, she will confirm her personal support for the role of teaching assistants across all their duties. The discipline element is important. Some parents tell me that their child is not getting the best opportunities in class because of other disruptive children. Teaching assistants can have a role in working with those children to maintain discipline and so enhance the learning opportunity.
I have said before that education is a dynamic field, but it cannot be greater than the sum of its parts unless teaching as a profession is ambitious and continually striving to improve and to provide the skills our young people need and employers demand. To do that, we must enhance the standards of the teaching professions across the board, including those of teaching assistants. We know that well-trained teaching assistants can make a real difference. The latest research from the Education Endowment Foundation confirms the significant positive effects—as mentioned earlier—that teaching assistants can have on literacy and numeracy
“when they are deployed well”.
Crucially, teaching assistants, when properly instructed and deployed,
“can be effective at improving attainment.”
What we need, then, on top of greater clarity on surrounding roles, is enhanced sharing of best practice on how teaching assistants are trained and deployed to ensure that the myths on teaching assistants are dispelled and their contributions recognised. The very fact that they are valued and utilised in increasingly large numbers should be the starting point for the analysis of their worth.
As I conclude, I pose a number of questions for the Minister. What does she see as the future for teaching assistants? Do the Government plan wholesale reductions? Will the Government consider reintroducing a national pay body? Does she recognise and support the need for formal ongoing professional development for teaching assistants? Will funding for the training of higher level teaching assistants be reinstated to aid development? Properly utilised, teaching assistants are neither low-cost substitute teachers, nor high-cost babysitters. Rather, when deployed effectively, they add real value to our education system and improve the learning and support that our young people can access. It is only right that we recognise that.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this very important debate on the value of teaching assistants. Teaching assistants make up something like a quarter of the schools work force and carry out a huge range of responsibilities, supporting teachers and forming a crucial part of the modern education system. Any Member of Parliament who visits schools in his or her constituency will see the excellent work that teaching assistants do and the tremendous support they give to teaching staff. I have seen many schools in my constituency where they are doing a fantastic job in backing up and supporting the work of teachers. Behavioural levels, for example, have improved significantly as a result. Teaching assistants, however, feel that their work is poorly understood and undervalued. They are among the lowest paid in public services, and they are overwhelmingly women and part-time workers. They work hard for little reward, often dealing with the most challenging and difficult children in school. They are very much valued in their communities, as I have seen from my visits to schools.
According to the latest official figures for publicly funded schools in England, there are some 360,000 teaching assistants, representing 27.4% of the schools work force and 25.8% of the full-time education work force. Some 93% of teaching assistants are women, which is an indication of the skew. Some 87%—that is, 312,000 teaching assistants—work part time. The growth in the number of teaching assistants was due to the previous Labour Government’s initiative to raise standards in schools and tackle teacher work load. The teaching professions had a little unease on the introduction of teaching assistants, a little like how the police force felt about the introduction of police community support officers. There was a worry that teaching assistants would try to take on duties meant for teachers, in the same way that police officers worried that PCSOs would take positions. That has not been the case, however. Teaching assistants, as with PCSOs, have provided excellent back-up and support.
On pay and conditions, teaching assistants are some of the lowest paid in the country in the public services, as I have mentioned. Their rates, as the Minister knows, vary across the country and in different schools. They are often paid at the lower levels of local authority pay scales and are under a massively diverse range of contracts and conditions, which vary by authority and school. For example, in local authority schools, teaching assistants are employed by the authority or the school, usually on local authority terms and conditions, and are then deployed by schools. That arrangement frequently causes confusion between local authorities and schools on contracts of employment and employment conditions. That in itself would be bad enough, but the academies have control over staff pay and are not bound by the collective agreements of the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Larger academy chains conduct their own pay negotiations, while the majority of stand-alone academies follow the national negotiations.
I am deeply concerned that the lack of a national framework for pay and job evaluation means that academies are frequently hiring teaching assistants on lower grades than are appropriate, depressing pay and assigning duties to teaching assistants that are outside their job descriptions. I will give some examples. A teaching assistant in north-east Lincolnshire said:
“I have been regraded from Teaching Assistant level 4 to level 2. I now have two contracts, one at level 2 and one at level 4 for two afternoons per week when I provide…cover.”
A teaching assistant from Plymouth said:
“I have to work one extra week a year with no extra remuneration.”
That cannot be right. For someone to work a week with no remuneration in the 21st century is appalling.
The previous Labour Government rightly recognised that something needed to be done on the shambolic nature of terms and conditions of employment for teaching assistants. Labour agreed to establish a new body: the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North referred. It comprised unions and employers and was created to set pay and employment conditions for the school support staff work force. It was put into statute in 2009, but was cancelled in 2010 by the current Secretary of State, who said that it did
“not fit well with the Government’s priorities for greater deregulation”—[Official Report, 28 October 2010; Vol. 721, c. 116WS.]
As a result, school support staff are still employed badly on low pay.
As my hon. Friend said earlier, there is now a severe threat to teaching assistants’ jobs. Teaching assistants feel that their contribution to education is poorly understood and undervalued. Government sources are suggesting that teaching assistant jobs will be put at further risk. A May 2013 report by the right-wing think-tank Reform, which has been closely linked with the Secretary of State and Conservative party policies, cited past research to argue that savings in schools spending should be found by dramatically reducing the number of teaching assistants and increasing class sizes. Reform claimed that teaching assistants had a
“negligible impact on pupil progress though some impact on teacher productivity”.
It recommended:
“Ministers should support schools that reduce numbers of teaching assistants and allow class sizes to rise.”
In June 2013, as referred to by my hon. Friend, the Daily Mail reported that the Treasury and the Department for Education
“are considering getting rid of the classroom assistants in attempt to save some of the £4 billion a year spent on them”,
and that the director of Reform had said that
“the money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers.”
As someone who served, along with the Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), on the Bill Committee of the Education Act 2011, I saw that the Government intend to introduce teachers with no academic qualifications. We have a right-wing think-tank saying that
“the money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers”,
but the Government are quite happy to employ unqualified teachers, which flies in the face of everything they have been saying.
The Institute of Education ran a project between 2003 and 2009 entitled “Deployment and impact of support staff”. One of its researchers said in The Guardian in early 2014:
“TAs can only be as effective as teachers enable them to be and they shouldn’t have to mind-read. Think carefully about TAs’ contribution to learning and communicate your intentions to them. Inform them of the skills or knowledge the students they support should be developing, and what learning you want them to achieve by the end of the lesson…TAs can have a potentially transformative impact on learning by making small adjustments to their practice. A growing number of schools are reaping the benefits of changing the nature of TAs’ interactions with students”.
The original Institute of Education research found that support staff
“can have a positive effect on teaching and teacher workloads and job satisfaction. We can also say from the systematic observation results that support staff presence leads to pupils being better behaved in the sense that there is less dealing with negative behaviour, and there is more pupil classroom engagement in the sense that pupils are more on-task and less off-task.”
Reform’s ideological targeting of teaching assistants is not supported by academic evidence and does not fit with the reality of the modern school system. Even Reform acknowledged that cutting teaching assistants would mean larger class sizes, which cannot be good. Our pupils deserve better than that. I urge the Government and the Minister to rethink how they view and value teaching assistants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, Ofsted has stated that teaching assistants
“are sensitive to pupils’ needs and offer good support and guidance to those who need extra help. Consequently, disabled pupils and those who have special educational needs achieve as well as their classmates and sometimes better”.
That can only be good for children. Teaching assistants are an essential part of their development.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing a debate that is of great importance to this country’s children.
Children benefit immensely from the hundreds of thousands of fantastic support staff in our schools, who do amazing work every single day of the academic year to support qualified teachers and the children in their care. We should value and support all public sector professionals, something which has been overlooked, particularly over the past four yours, because we have some superb teachers and teaching assistants. By any measure, we have the best generation of teachers that we have ever had, which the Government have admitted, and it is about time that the culture of criticism and attack on the professional work force in our schools and across the public sector came to an end. As MPs, who are responsible for public services in this country, it is about time that those who deliver public services, who are expected to deliver such services and to ensure that our children get the best possible education, get the support and encouragement that they deserve and need to do a good job.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested in my hon. Friend’s reference to the Government recognising that we probably have best generation of teachers, which is tremendous. Many of them trained over the past 10 to 15 years. Does he agree that Members of Parliament have a responsibility to lead our communities in appreciating the teachers’ expertise and valuing them highly? Communities do not necessarily value teachers in the way that we might expect and hope for.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is all about culture. If the people at the top show leadership by saying that teachers should be supported and encouraged, and by making it clear what we think of the people running our public services and those responsible for our children’s education, the rest of the country is likely to follow suit.
This debate, however, is about teaching assistants and the support that they provide to qualified teachers, whom I mention because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) stated, we now have a Government who say that teachers do not have to be qualified. It is worrying that that is now the situation in more than half of secondary schools. The role of teaching assistants is directly linked to that point and I will return to that later in my remarks.
The support that teaching assistants are able to offer, where we see good practice, provides support for teachers, whether helping in small groups or one-to-one situations, working with teachers to plan activities, or doing administrative tasks, or a combination of those, and many other activities.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining the benefits offered by teaching assistants. Does he agree that if the Government are contemplating significant changes, they should think about what damage would be done were they to reduce the number of teaching assistants? They not only help out with maintaining good order in classrooms and dealing with difficult-to-manage children, but offer a much-needed guidance role to special needs children in many schools.
Bill Esterson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes an excellent remark. I hope the Minister responds to that point and other comments of a similar nature.
Teaching assistants also allow teachers the time to plan lessons, to mark work and to carry out their own duties and responsibilities, but such things can happen only if teaching assistants are supported in the right way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North made a point about support and continuing professional development for teaching assistants. The same applies to teachers.
Under the previous Labour Government, an agreement was reached for teachers to have some time each week for planning, preparation and marking, which is an important part of learning. If teachers have that time, they are in a stronger position during lessons, and support from teaching assistants contributes to that. Without good planning time and good preparation, learning can only suffer. Allowing good planning time and preparation is one of the values of having good teaching assistants.
The Reform report referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston drew on evidence to show where practice has not always been very good. It is worth reflecting on where things have gone wrong in the past; that is part of learning for the future. Is it any surprise that teaching assistants struggle when they are forced to take classes without proper training and expertise; that children may not learn as effectively when teaching assistants are required to do a significant amount of teaching, without the support, training or preparation to enable them to support children; or that when teaching assistants are given responsibility for the children who need the most support, and are then left to their own devices, learning outcomes are not that good? Of course it is not a surprise; but cherry-picking the evidence and saying that it demonstrates that teaching assistants do not perform a valuable role misses the point. The evidence makes the case for giving them the support and training that they need to do a good job; it is not an argument for not having teaching assistants in the first place.
There is a big difference between leaving unqualified teachers in charge—whether they are teachers in academies or free schools, or teaching assistants—and providing teaching assistants with support and training from qualified, experienced teachers, so that they can provide structured, individual support, one to one or in small groups, and receive continuing back-up and review from the teacher. Those are very different situations. It is clear that where there is proper structure, support and review, learning improves. It is a shame that some people cherry-pick information and evidence to support their conclusions.
I looked at the report, “Deployment and Impact of Support Staff in Schools”, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston referred, which made the point:
“Given that lower attaining pupils are more likely to be given extra support it is vital that this is well organised and effective.”
To me, that statement summed up what is needed. At the time of the report and its analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning support assistants, the big expansion in numbers had only just started. There was scope for a great deal of learning about the most effective way of deploying them. The authors of the report analysed what was going wrong and what constituted good practice, and made recommendations:
“More needs to be done to prepare newly-qualified and in-service teachers with the necessary skills and preparation to help them manage the growing number of support staff with whom they work.
More needs to be done to prepare, particularly classroom based, support staff for their role in schools, especially for the now common, pedagogical, instructional role with pupils.
More time should be available for joint planning and feedback, and recommendations should also be made concerning ways in which TAs can be deployed effectively.”
Commenting on the deployment of support staff, the Institute of Education said:
“Schools should examine the deployment of classroom or pupil based support staff to ensure that they do not routinely support lower attaining pupils and pupils with SEN”,
which makes the point that children with the greatest needs need the greatest support from the classroom teacher. Some evidence shows that there have been times when the opposite has happened. It was published in 2009, so it has been available a long time. The report stated:
“We suggest that pupils in most need should get more not less of a teacher’s time”—
I hope that the Minister will respond to the point about special needs children—and added:
“Teachers should take responsibility for the lesson-by-lesson curriculum and pedagogical planning for all pupils in the class, including those pupils being supported by support staff.”
The evidence in the 2009 recommendations by the Institute of Education about best practice in the use of teaching assistants to support teachers is entirely consistent with the evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation and the remarks of other hon. Members in the debate. It shows that teaching assistants who are supported, encouraged and trained, who plan jointly with teachers, and who receive the right preparation and constant review, feedback and support are an invaluable addition to the educational landscape. They support children and improve young people’s life chances. We should support and encourage them and celebrate their work, as happened in November. The Opposition are clear about the important role of teaching assistants in schools. The Minister should do all that she can to support them and ensure that good practice is shared and should dismiss the suggestion that teaching assistant numbers should be cut.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. The two Front-Bench spokesmen have until 11 o’clock to make their speeches. If the debate concludes before then, I have the power to suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister will have plenty to say and that you will not need to exercise your power to suspend the sitting, Mr Howarth.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing a debate—which has, so far, been very interesting—on this important subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) on his thoughtful remarks, and, as ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) on his thoughtful and erudite contribution. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) on his interventions. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), although they are not now in their place, are also assiduous in attending such debates.
Schools have always had support staff. My mother was a dinner lady, and dinner ladies and others working in schools, such as caretakers, cleaners and so on, are all part of the support structure in a school. In other words, schools are made up of more than only teachers, head teachers and pupils. It is extremely important, from the outset, that we should take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of support staff in our schools—not only teaching assistants, but dinner ladies, caretakers, and lunchtime supervisors—because they are part of the fabric of school life and part of the process of caring for, safeguarding and educating our children. Such roles are perhaps not emphasised enough in our debates on education.
Alex Cunningham
My granny was also a dinner lady, and I valued her. I used to nip in to see her at lunchtime, and she would give me two old pennies for me to spend in the sweet shop, but only if I ate my school dinner. That was how she encouraged me. Dinner ladies are a tremendous encouragement to children generally, and they help with discipline. My hon. Friend will recognise why I wanted to mention that.
Kevin Brennan
I do indeed recognise that. In fact, I am also ancient enough to remember the pre-decimalisation era. There are certain disadvantages, however, for people whose mother is a dinner lady, particularly if they go to the same primary school: despite my picky eating ways, I was forced by embarrassment into eating my school dinner every day, whether I liked it or not. I want to make that tribute from the start, because it is important to remember that. Later, I will talk a little about support staff pay, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members.
Schools have changed immensely in the past couple of decades, particularly in relation to the provision of teaching assistants. When I taught in a comprehensive school between 1985 and the end of 1994, teaching history and economics and eventually being a head of department, there were no teaching assistants at all. Occasionally a special educational needs assistant might appear with a pupil with particular special needs, but teaching assistants were not otherwise present in schools. They would have been a great benefit, which is why there was a big expansion in the number of teaching assistants under the previous Government. They recognised that it was helpful to have support from teaching assistants available, as that would help pupils and enable teachers to get on with the job of teaching, they being the professionals in pedagogy.
Under Labour, the number of teaching assistants trebled. The number of regular, full-time-equivalent teaching assistants overall increased from 61,000 in 1997 to 194,000 in 2010, with the greatest increase in the primary sector, but there was also a 36% increase in the secondary sector, including academies. There was a large expansion, as well as a degree of debate about the effectiveness of teaching assistants and about what jobs they carried out, because they have a wide range of duties when helping out in schools.
The Government have been sending out mixed messages about teaching assistants, and that has been reflected in the debate. I hope that the Minister will, in her response, set out with more clarity the Government’s vision for the future of teaching assistants in our schools. We have already seen the Secretary of State’s failed attempt to dismantle completely the 2003 workforce agreement. That attempt was rejected by the teachers’ pay body, which did not believe that we should return to the days of teachers being expected to undertake many tasks that were not directly related to their teaching. That was the first mixed message given out by the Secretary of State.
As hon. Friends have pointed out, there have also been leaks to the press about other messages, presumably from the Secretary of State, or perhaps from some of his special advisers on the lunatic fringe—we never know the sources of such press stories for sure. One story, which appeared last year in the Daily Mail in response to the Reform report, has already been referred to:
“The Treasury and Department for Education are considering getting rid of the classroom assistants in an attempt to save some of the £4 billion a year spent on them...Think-tank Reform found that schools could improve value for money by cutting the number of teaching assistants and increasing class sizes.
Thomas Cawston, the think-tank’s research director, said: ‘We cited a swathe of evidence that questioned the value for money of teaching assistants and demonstrated that their impact on educational outcomes for pupils was negligible.’”
I apologise for quoting at length, but I will quote a little more from what was reported:
“We found that while they were supposed to help teachers, they were actually being allowed to take classes themselves. Not being prepared or qualified to do those classes, they were not doing a very good job.
The money spent on teaching assistants would be far better spent on improving the quality of teachers.”
Understandably, that story led to speculation and to concern and uncertainty in the world of education about the Government’s position on teaching assistants. The Government seem to support the idea that assistants are a waste of money. I do not know whether that message is driven from the Treasury, to put pressure on the Department, or if that is what the Secretary of State for Education and his Ministers believe. I hope that the Minister present will today clear up the matter and give us all—the country, everyone interested in this and the people working in our schools, including teaching assistants, teachers and head teachers—a clear view, rather than strange mixed messages.
My next example is not of a mixed message, in fairness to Ministers, but of a straightforward two fingers up to teaching assistants and support staff, including dinner ladies and others working in our schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, who served as a Whip on the Bill concerned, has mentioned this. Within months of coming to power, the Government abolished the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
Let me explain. That body was not a national pay review body in the way that the teachers’ one is, or other public sector workers’ bodies are. It was not charged with recommending and setting pay and conditions for staff; it was simply there to provide for the whole country a framework or guide, including descriptions of the type of work undertaken in schools by support staff, such as teaching assistants. It acted as a valuable reference point for school leaders, managers, governors, local authorities, academy chains and so on, so that they knew what the rate for the job roughly was, and what the job undertaken by support staff was—what the job descriptions were, and so on. Through the School Support Staff Negotiating Body, a huge amount of work by everyone involved went into putting together those job descriptions and providing the framework that enabled everyone to have a clear sight of the kind of work undertaken by support staff.
Alex Cunningham
The National Education Trust suggests that we should go a step further and introduce professional standards for teaching assistants. Does my hon. Friend have a view on that?
Kevin Brennan
So much damage has been done by the Government that we need to attend to that first and reconstruct something from the vandalism undertaken by Ministers immediately following the election. I said it at the time, and I will repeat it now: that was one of the most short-sighted, mean-spirited decisions undertaken by the Government when they came to power. So committed are they to a market ideology that they could not see the value or usefulness to school leaders, governors, leaders of academy chains and others of having a reference point for job descriptions and the work being undertaken, to enable a judgment to be made about a job’s value. The ludicrous but sadly real example read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston of a teaching assistant being employed on different terms from someone else while undertaking the same job is a good demonstration of the problem.
Let us combine that decision with the Government’s deregulation of teaching, whereby they are saying that people now need no qualifications whatever to become teachers in state schools. There are all sorts of jobs out there for which people require qualifications, including working for McDonald’s, but under the Government’s right-wing deregulation of the teaching profession, people do not need any qualifications whatever to teach in our schools.
In answer to criticism of that policy, the Government cite individual examples of people without teaching qualifications who teach in private schools. There are a few things to be said about that. One is that it is not the individual example that counts, but the impact over time of deregulating the system and allowing unqualified teachers into the classroom on the quality of teaching and on the teaching profession. Over time, as we have seen in Sweden, the results of that kind of deregulatory, right-wing approach are disastrous, with schools failing and being closed down. As for private schools, the Minister never mentions that of the 50% of private schools inspected by Ofsted because they are non-association schools, 13% were found to be inadequate in the previous Ofsted inspection report, published in December. Those are the sorts of schools she seems to be suggesting we should follow.
Taken together, those mixed messages are causing a real sense of uncertainty within our schools. We therefore want clarity from the Minister today. What is the Government’s vision for the future of teaching assistants and support staff in our schools? Are there plans to axe them, as hinted by sources in the Department for Education in that Daily Mail article last year? Will she clear up the position once and for all today, and give us a clear message on the future for teaching assistants?
Hon. Friends have talked about the debate and controversy since the publication of the Reform report last year. That report has been used by some—including, it would seem, people briefing on behalf of Ministers and the Treasury—to say that we should reduce the number of teaching assistants in our schools.
Recently we have also had a helpful report from the Education Endowment Foundation, an organisation that has received an endowment from the Government—a positive policy that we fully support. Its recent report concluded that teaching assistants can improve literacy and numeracy skills when they are deployed well. Those conclusions came from a series of controlled tests; I will not go into the details, but the foundation used a group of reports based on trials in 238 schools, giving us a major new source of independent evidence to help schools use teaching assistants to narrow the gap—the professed aim of the Government and the Opposition.
It is important to pay attention to the evidence, positive or negative, rather than simply cherry-picking it. When we look at that evidence, the conclusions are interesting. The Times Educational Supplement has recently looked at what the Education Endowment Foundation has produced, and said:
“Children struggling with reading and maths make significant progress when given as little as 30 minutes’ individual attention a week by a teaching assistant, research has revealed.
Primary school students who received two 15-minute maths sessions a week made three months more progress over the course of a year than their classmates, according to a study published today by England’s Education Endowment Foundation”.
The foundation has made a useful contribution to the debate by publishing its research.
The Education Media Centre recently made an interesting assessment of research around this issue, which shows that there are concerns about how teaching assistants are deployed in our schools. That is the key issue: we need to get away from the question whether we should have that kind of support within our schools and on to the issue of how teaching assistants are best deployed for maximum impact. The way that Reform—it has an agenda, to be honest—used the research last year, and was backed up by sources purporting to speak on behalf of Ministers, was pretty disgraceful. It was used simply as a way of saying that we need to get rid of the support that is available through having teaching assistants in our schools, rather than looking at what works when we deploy them.
In the Education Media Centre’s recent article, which can be found on its website, the following point was made:
“Therefore, schools must make interventions, delivered by properly trained TAs, part of a coherent, integrated package of learning for those falling behind…On the basis of the available evidence, it can be argued schools must fundamentally rethink how they use TAs and ensure they add value to teachers, not replace them.
We need to make sure TAs are not given primary responsibility for pupils in most need and are used in ways to allow teachers to spend more time with these pupils.
Allied to this is the need to develop what we might call an improved teaching method for TAs: a way of interacting with pupils using effective styles of questioning to promote and support independent learning.
Finally, we need to guarantee time for teachers and TAs to liaise and seriously invest in TAs’ professional development.”
The conclusion that I and most hon. Members here have drawn from the evidence is that we should get away from a debate about cutting away swathes of teaching assistants, which is what we were hearing last year, and get on to a debate about what works, as shown by the evidence. The evidence clearly shows that teaching assistants have a discrete role that needs to be supported by professional development. It would be a great benefit if the Government could indicate their support for teaching assistants by putting in place once more a proper negotiating body for support staff, so that they feel that they are valued and there is a future for them. That would also be of great assistance to schools.
The evidence shows that teaching assistants work best when they are allowed to perform their discrete role and are given the support to do so, rather than being used simply as a way of covering lessons or filling in holes. We would welcome the Minister giving us a clear message today on these questions. What do the Government think the future role is for teaching assistants? What will they do to enhance that role and give assurance to people working in those roles that they have a future? What are the Government doing to promote the best evidence on how teaching assistants are best deployed for the purpose for which they are there—in other words, to help the education of pupils?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this important debate. I know that he is a passionate supporter of the work of teaching assistants and the valuable and important contribution that they and others make. I also know that there are many across the House of Commons who support teaching assistants. Yesterday, I bumped into the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), who is training to be a teaching assistant himself. I note that he is sorry that he could not be here to speak in this debate.
There were some aspects of Opposition Members’ speeches with which I was not quite up to date. I was in school after decimalisation came in, so I cannot relate to that experience. In fact, I did not actually eat school dinners at my primary school. There was a chip shop over the road, and the school provided a special lollipop lady to take us to the chip shop at lunchtime instead. So I did not avail myself of the services of the school dinner ladies at the time, but lollipop ladies were also an important part of our school infrastructure.
The Government value the important contribution made by teaching assistants, often in challenging circumstances, to the teaching, effective management and organisation of schools. We also value hugely the role of teachers and we recognise that teaching is the No. 1 factor in high-quality education systems.
Lindsay Roy
Given the Minister’s recognition of the valuable role of teachers and teaching assistants and what she said about the importance of this debate, can she explain why the seats opposite are empty?
Elizabeth Truss
I am sure that it is because Government Members have every confidence that the Government are taking action on the issue.
We know that teaching assistants are dedicated to improving the learning and life chances of children and young people in our schools. I note that the number of teaching assistants has increased under this Government: the number of teaching assistants employed in maintained schools and academies was 97,000 in 2005 and more than 200,000 in 2012. It is not just the Government who value teaching assistants; we know that schools value the roles that TAs perform.
Alex Cunningham
I am absolutely delighted to hear the Minister speak so glowingly about teaching assistants and recognise that numbers have increased under the current Government. Can she therefore tell us that central Government will take no action that will discourage the recruitment of teaching assistants in the future?
Elizabeth Truss
I can confirm that. I was going to come to it later in my comments.
Over the time in which teaching assistants have become part of our school life, their role has developed from providing general administrative and logistical support to teachers to supporting the attainment of groups of pupils in schools. As many Members have said, teaching assistants are not employed simply to support the classroom teacher; they play an active role to improve children’s literacy and numeracy skills and behaviour, and often work tirelessly to help children with special educational needs and complex emotional, medical and physical needs achieve academic success. As many hon. Members have mentioned, evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation and others has shown that to be the case. Teaching assistants also have a positive effect on teacher morale and reduce stress, which is another important factor. It is absolutely right to consider teaching assistants as part of a school team made up not just of teachers—the pedagogical experts—but of all kinds of support staff, including teaching assistants, those who work with school meals and school librarians. We should see them as part of a whole.
In my comments, I want to address a misconception about the future of teaching assistants and the claims that many will lose their jobs. I absolutely assure the hon. Member for Stockton North and his colleagues that neither the Department for Education nor the Government have any plans or powers to make that happen. I welcome the opportunity laid out by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for us to have a debate about the best use and deployment of teaching assistants and how it works with other aspects of school organisation, such as continuing professional development and training. We all want a highly trained, highly skilled work force of teachers and teaching assistants. That is our aim.
The evidence is clear that teaching assistants’ impact on pupil attainment is varied. The best teaching assistants are well-trained, informed, skilled and well-managed, but that is not true universally. We can do more to help school leaders understand how to get the best from their teaching assistants for the benefit of their pupils.
Alex Cunningham
I put a question to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the ambition of the National Education Trust to have professional standards for teaching assistants, which is supported by Unison and other trade unions. Would the Minister push it that far and go for professional standards in the development of teaching assistants?
Elizabeth Truss
I will come to that later in my comments. We do have some plans with reference to teaching assistants.
Bill Esterson
Before the Minister moves on—this may come later in her remarks as well—I welcome what she said about ensuring that good practice is everywhere when it comes to teaching assistants. Does she have an assessment of how much good practice there is and how much practice she would like to change?
Elizabeth Truss
No, I do not have that assessment at this stage.
In 2013, the Department published a review of efficiency in the school system showing that the differences in the impact of TAs on attainment can be explained largely by how individual schools choose to deploy them. That is supported by the recent report from the Education Endowment Foundation, which showed that TAs can improve literacy and numeracy skills when deployed well and suggested that when used to support specific pupils in small groups or through structured interventions, TAs can be effective at improving attainment.
My main point of contention with the speeches made by Opposition Members is about how to improve attainment. The Government do not believe that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. We believe in a school-led system. As the hon. Members who are on the Education Committee will be well aware from Andreas Schleicher’s evidence to the Committee recently, international statistics suggest that a combination of autonomy and accountability achieves the best results for schools. When head teachers are given the power to make decisions about how to deploy staff in their schools, create an effective team, develop that team and manage talent, but are held to account through rigorous systems of inspection and external accountability, that leads to the best results, which is why we are reluctant to dictate to schools how to deploy teaching assistants or impose rigid boundaries about what teaching assistants can and cannot do. We know that there are different types of schools with different students, and there might be different factors in different areas of the country, so we are reluctant to create a one-size-fits-all policy.
That is my main point of difference from Opposition Members. I certainly do not disagree about the value of teaching assistants—the evidence shows that they are an important part of our education system—but we may disagree about the best way to ensure that schools deploy teaching assistants to students’ benefit.
Mark Hendrick
The Minister is giving a positive picture of the role of teaching assistants and is making the point that the Government do not think it a good idea to be too prescriptive about how teaching assistants are used; those considerations are best made locally. However, can she say a little about how she feels about low pay? As I said in my contribution, low pay is a problem for teaching assistants. We obviously value the work that they do, but in doing so, should we not see that they are properly remunerated and not just treated as cheap labour?
Elizabeth Truss
The evidence from the EEF suggests that teaching assistants who are properly remunerated and have a clear training structure achieve more, and that is something the head teacher ought to be taking into account.
In view of the evidence, we know that more can be done to help schools ensure that their TAs have a rewarding career and make an even greater contribution and impact in schools. We have been gathering evidence from teaching schools, academy chains and other key stakeholders on what good deployment and support for TAs looks like in our best schools.
We know that successful senior leaders deploy TAs based on their school’s particular needs and that different deployment models can work in the right circumstances. However, underpinning those models is a number of principles that good schools apply universally in deploying TAs. Those include employing suitably qualified TAs. We know that the TA’s level of general qualifications and skills—for example, their literacy and numeracy skills—can vary, and it is important that schools ensure that the qualifications, skills and backgrounds of their TAs are sufficiently robust and match the specific needs of the school.
We know that it is important that TAs are deployed according to their skills and expertise. TAs are employed in a variety of roles in schools, from providing administrative support for teachers to assisting with classroom and SEN teaching, and we have seen that good schools have a very clear structure and description of those roles. It is also important that schools are continually reviewing the deployment of TAs to ensure that they are achieving the stated objectives and are reviewing matters when those objectives have been achieved.
It is important to provide joint preparation and planning time for TAs and teachers to establish clear lesson outcomes and goals, which is a point made by the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). Planning and preparation time are of course vital for teachers and teaching assistants to get the best out of their lessons. One thing that we are working on in the new maths hubs that the Government are establishing across the country is looking at best practice from overseas on organising the planning and preparation for lessons. However, in a school-led system, that ultimately has to be led by schools, rather than by the Government saying, “This is what we want you to do on a national basis.” I think that Opposition Members and I agree on the outcomes that we want to see; the question mark is over exactly how to achieve them. It is really essential for teaching assistants to understand the targets for pupils and to be trained in assessing pupil progress.
Bill Esterson
Does the Minister accept that it is a good idea for good practice evidence to be given to schools, so that they can make those judgements locally?
Elizabeth Truss
I do, and I am about to say more about that in a minute; I think the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the rest of my speech.
It is also important to implement strong performance management procedures to improve the quality of support and teaching in the classroom and to provide TAs with quality training and support, along with mentoring programmes and career development opportunities. We have also seen some schools putting in place innovative staffing structures and creating support staff roles that are very different from the traditional TA. Some schools prefer to deploy specialist support staff with degrees to work with high-performing pupils on achieving excellence or to lead classes, allowing teachers to spend more time with underperforming pupils.
Opposition Members have asked what the Government will do about this issue. The answer is that we want to make those principles a reality. That is why our intention is to make the evidence of good practice, supported by case studies, available to schools this year. We will be issuing guidance to schools about the best use and deployment of TAs based on the best available practice. I would very much welcome any practical suggestions on what more we could do to support TAs when the report is published. This is an important development that the Government are undertaking. We recognise the value of teaching assistants and we want to make the debate about how teaching assistants are best deployed and to help schools learn from other schools, because a school-led system provides the opportunity to innovate and develop best practice examples that other schools can then learn from.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister talks about the autonomy of schools and about schools being able to innovate and introduce best practice. However, one academy chain is talking about a huge contract for support staff across the entire country, possibly screwing down wages and everything else. Does the Minister really think that that will leave the school with the autonomy that they need and the highly motivated teaching assistants that they want to develop in the school situation?
Elizabeth Truss
Ultimately, schools are judged on their results. They are inspected by Ofsted and judged through the accountability system. That will be even better under the new progress 8 measure, in which the achievement of each individual getting a bit better will count. The only way for schools to achieve that is to motivate their staff and to have staff who are well trained, who understand what pupil progress looks like and who feel that they are part of a team. That is about good management. If a school is not doing that, it will find that staff do not have sufficient motivation and that they will not do an effective job. Part of the point of the Government putting together the best practice study is to show schools what good practice looks like for those who are not doing it already.
Alex Cunningham
I intervene a final time and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She talks about training, autonomy and all manner of things, but the issue is also about remuneration and reward for teaching staff. We face a situation in which the wages being paid to them are being screwed down, rather than the contribution that they make being recognising properly through their pay. Does she not think that it would be better if they were better paid?
Elizabeth Truss
When I speak to head teachers, they tell me that staff are motivated by a variety of things—partly the remuneration package, but also such things as the career structure, training opportunities and the atmosphere in a school. All those things contribute to a good package and it is up to school leaders who want to retain and recruit the best people to offer an attractive package to encourage people to join or stay part of their school.
We also want to see more effective use of TAs to support pupils with SEN to progress. It is not enough simply to allocate hours of support; we also have to look at outcomes. TAs can play a very positive role in helping teachers to meet children’s special educational needs, and there are many good TAs doing that. However, the support that they provide should be part of a well-thought-out package of support for the individual child, rather than as a substitute for teacher involvement with that child.
We have built on reports from Ofsted and Brian Lamb when developing our SEN and disability reforms, first in the Green Paper, “Support and aspiration”, and now through the Children and Families Act 2014. Reforms will ensure that there is a greater focus on outcomes rather than on the hours of provision in agreeing the teaching and support to be provided for pupils with SEN, giving families and young people a greater say. We have also established a national scholarship fund for support staff, helping them to develop expertise and higher level skills. In the most recent round, 113 support staff were funded to undertake postgraduate qualifications and training in supporting children with SEN and disabilities.
We have encouraged schools, when deciding how to invest the pupil premium funding, to engage actively with high-quality evidence from robust research studies. That includes the research summarised in the EEF teaching and learning toolkit.
In summary, the Government value the role of teaching assistants. We believe that it is down to schools to make sure that those teaching assistants are deployed in the best possible way to support the learning of students and the best possible pupil progress. However, this year, we will be publishing best practice evidence to help show schools how they can deploy teaching assistants to the benefit of both teaching assistants and the students in a school. I thank hon. Members for what has been a very interesting and helpful debate, and I would welcome their contributions to the work we are doing on teaching assistants.
Fair Tax Mark
(10 years, 9 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
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I am grateful for the chance to raise the subject of fair tax today. I intend to build on the work that went into one of my first private Member’s Bills, on tax and financial transparency. I want to highlight the growing case for the Government to require companies to come clean, and I want to explain why that should be matched by efforts to recognise and reward those companies that currently and proactively pay their fair share of tax. I will set out, too, why fair tax ought to be at the heart of the Government’s corporate social responsibility agenda.
No one, I am sure, will be surprised at the timing of my request for the debate. We will all assemble tomorrow to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer present his latest Budget. Among the measures he presents, there will no doubt be many references to taxation. Equally, I have little doubt that he will refer to the tax contribution that companies make to this country. After all, the UK’s limited companies, of which there are now more than 3.2 million, make a valuable contribution to our Exchequer, including by way of corporation tax. That tax on the profit of companies is scheduled to raise £39 billion in total this year, for example. However, it is, as hon. Members will know, that tax in particular that has attracted so much public attention, not least because of campaigns by organisations such as the Tax Justice Network, ActionAid, Oxfam and Christian Aid, but also because of the invaluable work of the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
The taxes paid by corporations were also, of course, the focus of much of the Prime Minister’s attention last year during his period as chair of the G8, when he drew attention to the problem of international tax abuse and its impact on tax revenues in both the UK and elsewhere. Partly as a result of his efforts, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is now devoting much of its attention to addressing what it describes as the problem of base erosion and profit shifting, which is a somewhat Orwellian term for something that most of us would simply call “shifting profits to tax havens”.
As anyone who has looked at this issue will know, it is incredibly difficult in many cases to work out precisely what tax is paid by which corporation, in what state, where and when. There are a number of reasons for that, including that both generally accepted accounting principles in the UK and the rules set down by the international accounting standards foundation are full of weaknesses when it comes to the requirements for accounting for tax. In both cases, it is necessary for a company only to specify a total tax charge, split between current taxation and deferred taxation. There is no need for a company to explain in which country the liabilities are due, to report when the actual sum is settled or to set out why the current tax liability has been reduced from that which would be expected if paid at the full UK corporation tax rate.
Criticism of those rules is widespread and not just from those who might be dismissed as the usual suspects. International accountants Ernst and Young—hardly associated with being anti-establishment—said this in a report that it issued last year:
“Public debate is increasingly focused on the tax policies of companies as well as the amount of tax they pay. With the dialogue played out across a number of channels including investors, parliamentary committees, governments and the EU as well as the national press and social media, there is growing pressure on organisations to respond or face reputational damage…In our view, the debate around ‘fair tax’ has raised the bar in terms of the expectations of the level of tax information provided by multinational companies and we expect the response will be a greater degree of disclosure by many organisations. Indeed, the debate is progressing at such a pace that it is difficult to envisage an environment where increased tax transparency in some form or another is not on the near horizon.”
The report concludes:
“Reporting, both voluntary and mandatory, is therefore a key element of tax transparency—simply complying with the current rules may no longer be enough.”
I could not put it better myself, which is why I have quoted the report at such length. As the accountants at Ernst and Young clearly understand, the time has come for companies, both large and small, to come clean about their tax affairs.
My Tax and Financial Transparency Bill, published in 2011, was designed to help the UK to recover billions of pounds of lost tax by forcing companies to become more transparent in their accounting. It included a requirement on multinational companies to publish information on where they make their sales, record their profits and pay their taxes, to ensure that corporations make a fair and proper contribution to society. The Bill would also have ensured that banks had to provide details on all accounts that they maintained for companies operating in the UK, so that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Companies House could chase those companies that did not file the returns that they are obliged to make for the missing information—and the tax that they owed.
I hope that, in tomorrow’s Budget, we will get an update on the latest action that the Treasury has been taking to tackle tax evasion and to promote tax and financial transparency. Every step in the right direction is to be welcomed. However, we have yet to see any commitment from the Government to the kind of overhaul that would put fair tax, as envisaged by my Bill or indeed by Ernst and Young’s accountants, centre stage.
This is an issue at the heart of corporate social responsibility. That is why I support the fair tax mark, which was launched in February of this year, and I am pleased that 40 Members of this House have signed my early-day motion commending the mark. I applaud those behind the mark, who are seeking to mainstream responsible tax in corporate responsibility discourse. For far too long, the issue has simply been ignored.
I equally applaud the three companies that pioneered the fair tax mark at the time of its launch. The Midcounties Co-operative, Unity Trust Bank and the Phone Co-op deserve to be praised for their courage in standing out from the crowd and making it very clear that they are committed to paying fair tax in this country.
For too long, the corporate responsibility world has been silent on this issue, and a jolt was needed to force it to come out into the open. It is not a coincidence, I believe, that social enterprises are at the forefront of this development, given the key role that they have already played in the global roll-out of Fairtrade—a scheme that works along similar lines. I hope that companies of all types and persuasions will join the early pioneers in applying for the fair tax mark over the coming years and that this mark will become as familiar as the Fairtrade mark has become to many. Indeed, I have written to a number of businesses in my constituency that have already demonstrated strong ethical principles in their commitment to the living wage to make them aware of the fair tax mark scheme.
The potential is enormous. Recent polling by the Institute of Business Ethics has found that corporate tax dodging is now the No. 1 concern of the public when it comes to business conduct. This, though, will not be enough. Voluntary arrangements are important, and pioneers indicate the way in which society should change, but it is down to this House, and the Government whom we hold to account, to respond to such demands in ways that meet public expectation. Therefore, in the time remaining to me, I would like to ask the Minister four questions with regard to fair tax.
First, does the Minister welcome the development of the fair tax mark and the necessity of tax being a mainstream issue for corporate responsibility? Secondly, many other hon. Members will be familiar with what is called country-by-country reporting by multinational corporations. It was a demand made by the tax justice movement that multinational companies publish separate accounts for each and every jurisdiction in which they trade. It was a requirement of my 2011 private Member’s Bill that companies operating in the UK do that, so I was encouraged when, at the G8 summit last year, the Prime Minister asked that that information be supplied by multinational companies to their tax authorities, yet we know that his own Government have been working incredibly hard at European Union level and elsewhere to ensure that that information will not be required by the new EU accounting directive. Indeed, the UK has been reported to be blocking progress on that issue at present, so will the Government reflect the mood of some in the accounting profession, of the public, of this House and of stakeholders throughout the UK and the rest of the world and demand that companies put that information on public record?
Thirdly, I think that the time has come for the Government to initiate reform in the disclosure required concerning tax liabilities and payments in the accounts of UK companies. For too long, we have devolved responsibility on this issue to members of the accounting profession, whether in this country or internationally, because it is they who now set the disclosure rules, yet it is that same profession that has also promoted so much of the tax abuse that is now costing our country, and many countries in the global south, dear. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the big four firms of accountants are present in every major tax haven in the world. Can the Minister therefore tell me whether a review might be established to determine what disclosure should be made to ensure that we can hold all companies—large and small, national and international—to account for the tax that they should pay in this country?
Lastly, I, like many, think that the Government should reward responsible tax payment. It was only a year or so ago that the Government said that they were going to consider a company’s tax record in their procurement policy, and I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Office has clearly stated in a procurement policy note of July 2013 that Government contracts worth more than £5 million will not be awarded to companies that aggressively avoid paying their tax. However, it is disappointing that the Treasury backed off from further action when it realised that there were problems with compatibility with EU law. I recognise that there are problems, but I have been told that they are not insurmountable. I have also been told that there is demand for reform on this issue in many countries in Europe—in particular France, Finland and Sweden—and elsewhere. Is it not time for the Government to say that they want to trade with businesses that show they recognise their responsibility to society by paying their tax? That might come from a straightforward endorsement of companies that have a fair tax mark. The Government might also try to revise EU law or seek informed opinion about how procurement arrangements can be revised within existing law.
The right hon. Member for Barking said in a Public Accounts Committee hearing last year that the tax avoidance that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs acknowledged in its tax gap calculations was
“the tip of the iceberg”
of the true cost to the UK.
In 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
I agree that transparency is the best way to ensure that companies are held to account for the tax that they pay. I hope the Government will commit to ensuring that information is made available to make certain that all UK companies pay their fair share of tax. That is exactly what we should expect of them.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate. As she said, she has a long-standing interest in the issue of tax transparency. She set out her case clearly, and I welcome her contribution. Before I speak about the fair tax mark, I will provide some context about wider Government policy on tax levels and tax avoidance.
A key priority for the Government is to ensure that the UK boasts a competitive and fair tax system so businesses can flourish, but we also want to stamp down on avoidance. We have reduced the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 21% from next month, and it will go down to 20% next year. We have introduced a single rate for all companies, small and large, and the lowest corporation tax rate of any G8 company and the joint lowest rate in the G20. We have introduced the patent box; the seed enterprise investment scheme, which helps new businesses starting up in the UK with equity finance; and substantial new tax reliefs aimed at the creative and high-tech industries. Taken together, those steps encourage businesses to invest, innovate and create employment in the UK.
We want to offer competitive tax rates to ensure that companies locate jobs, invest and expand in the United Kingdom, but we are also determined to deal with tax evasion and contrived tax avoidance schemes, so individuals or businesses are not able to gain an unfair advantage. It is sometimes argued that the objectives of ensuring competitiveness and dealing with avoidance and evasion are contradictory. I do not accept that. I believe that it is possible to create a tax system that is attractive to businesses, ensures that tax law is not exploited in ways that Parliament does not want and is properly enforced. To that end, the Government are investing almost £1 billion in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this Parliament to clamp down on avoidance and evasion. We are also giving HMRC new legal powers to tackle tax evaders and the promoters and users of tax avoidance schemes. The amount of money that HMRC obtains from taxpayers as a consequence of the actions it has taken has increased to record levels and is substantially higher than the levels we inherited in 2010. We have made great progress in dealing with tax avoidance and evasion.
It is not surprising that, as the hon. Lady said, public concern and interest in this issue has never been so strong. We are addressing the challenges of our large deficit, and bringing it down requires tough decisions. The public rightly expect the Government to be vigilant and ensure that everybody pays the share of tax that is required under law and that nobody abuses the system that is designed to ensure that everybody makes a fair contribution.
As the hon. Lady said, it is right to say that the issue of tax—corporation tax, in particular—should not be looked at solely as a domestic issue. There is international concern about tax transparency, and we are working closely with our international partners. Our goal is simple: we want to reform the international tax system so companies pay the tax that is due where it is due. It is right and fair that they pay tax in the jurisdiction in which their economic activity occurs. Last year, the United Kingdom used our presidency of the G8 to focus on improving transparency by proposing a new tool to require multinationals to report to tax authorities on where they make their profits and pay their taxes around the world. We also proposed a tool for securing more extensive information exchanges to tackle tax havens and pierce through the corporate veil. On top of that, the Prime Minister announced last autumn that the Government will establish a publicly accessible registry of company beneficial ownership.
Transparency is vital to tackle a range of illicit finance threats and to discourage tax evasion by removing the secrecy that enables businesses and some individuals to hide information from HMRC. As the Prime Minister said,
“We need to know who really owns and controls our companies.”
Therefore, the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of transparency.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for his full answer, but will he focus on the EU accounting directive? He said that the Government want greater transparency, and he implied that they are in favour of country-by-country reporting, which is positive. However, the message we are hearing is that the UK has not supported the EU accounting directive.
Mr Gauke
I will make three points. First, the UK believes that there is a need for greater transparency. There have been discussions about that issue in the G8, in particular about the UK Government’s proposal that companies should provide information about where their activity takes place and where they pay tax.
I will not digress for long on this point, Mr Howarth, but a year or so ago I had a meeting at Euston tower with the HMRC officials who deal with transfer pricing matters. They said it would help them to have a relatively simple form to provide information about the companies into which they enquire so they know where those companies make their profits and where they pay tax. The officials said it would help them to have high-level information that could tell them, for example, that a high proportion of profits were being transferred to a low-tax jurisdiction. They said that type of information would enable them to assess risks and determine where to put their resources. That conversation and others resulted in our proposal for the high-level tool.
Secondly, we want to ensure that we have the information that can help HMRC to make risk assessments and know where to focus its efforts. However, we want to do so without in any way compromising our desire not to impose unnecessary burdens on businesses and not to create a whole lot of bureaucracy that does not necessarily help tax authorities much.
The hon. Lady may not have much sympathy with our third point, but the long-standing position of the UK Government—under all parties—is that tax is principally a matter for member states. We have concerns about a tax measure being included in a non-tax directive, thereby undermining the competency of member states in direct tax matters.
I hope that I have provided some context for our thinking on the matter. Nevertheless, I want to underline the point that that does not diminish the fact that the UK is leading the way in ensuring that the right kind of information is provided to tax authorities to enable them to assess a company, how aggressive it is in its tax planning, how much it is putting into low-tax jurisdictions and how much it is putting into mainstream jurisdictions.
Let me turn to the subject of the debate, namely the fair tax mark, although I appreciate that we are having a wider discussion. I welcome any contribution that informs and progresses the debate about transparency and a better understanding of the taxes paid by companies. We welcome any business moving to improve the transparency of its own tax affairs. Indeed, as a Minister I have made the point for at least three years that companies must do more to explain the tax that they pay and some of the complexities of their situation, which can be lost in a febrile public debate. They must be much more open and transparent in explaining their arrangements, because it would be to the benefit of all companies if people understood such matters better. Often, companies’ silence leads to suspicion, whether well-founded or not.
The specific proposal for a fair tax mark is a new initiative—let us see how it works. I generally welcome anything that progresses the debate. If such an initiative is to work effectively, clear and objective criteria must be in place and must be applied fairly and objectively by informed and credible experts who are well respected by business and the wider public. There must also be a governance structure that addresses any concerns about conflicts of interest and ensures independence. If the fair tax mark can meet those tests, it will be a particularly valuable contribution to the debate.
Of course, HMRC’s role is different. It must collect the tax that is owed under the law, help businesses to understand their obligations and make them aware of reliefs to which they are entitled and, of course, pursue relentlessly the minority who bend or break the rules. HMRC is also leading the way in improving transparency by opening up its own processes to greater public scrutiny, both to restore public confidence and to demonstrate to the public that it does not settle disputes with any taxpayers otherwise than in accordance with the law. We welcome efforts by businesses to improve the transparency of their affairs, and I see the fair tax mark as part of that debate.
As time permits, I would like to say a little about country-by-country reporting. The hon. Lady pointed out that the international base erosion and profit shifting process—the BEPS project—is under way. I very much welcome the development of a standardised country-by-country reporting template, a proposal that the UK initiated under our G8 presidency last year. The template will help tax administrations with their risk assessment, provided that it is focused on useful information that will show, at a high level, where businesses are making their profits and paying their taxes around the world. That will give tax authorities, including those of developing countries, a new tool to help them to identify and assess risks efficiently. I would emphasise that, although the UK supports the OECD’s work on the template, we remain mindful of the need to balance that against the need not to disproportionately increase the compliance burden on business.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. I feel that there is a gap between the strong words of welcome he gives to the idea of greater transparency and the actual actions he is prepared to see taken to follow them up. To return to the EU accounting directive for a moment, the issue is simply one of transparency. He says that the Government are not in favour of it because it brings tax matters under a non-tax regulation, but it is about transparency, which is cross-cutting.
Similarly, the Minister says, for example, that the Government would welcome contracts not being awarded to companies that aggressively avoid paying tax. Will he tell me about any concrete action that the Government are going to take to follow that up? We can either change EU laws or work with other countries to make it possible for that to be operational.
Mr Gauke
I do not want to repeat myself on the EU accounting directive, but we believe that we must protect the broad principle that tax matters are for member states. There has been action at the EU level on banking and extractives, which we recognise and support, but we are sensitive to any creep of powers in this area. I am not at all embarrassed to make that point. We must also find a way to ensure that we get the information that tax authorities need without imposing unmanageable burdens on businesses.
On procurement, it is worth pointing out that we are the Government who have brought in new rules where none were in place before. The new rules will come into effect on 1 April and require all suppliers to declare tax non-compliance. Departments will have the ability to terminate a contract on the basis of such a declaration, if they so wish. From the hon. Lady’s perspective, that should be welcomed, and the Government deserve credit.
Returning to country-by-country reporting, I repeat that although we support the OECD’s work on the template, on which we very much led the way, we remain mindful of the need to balance that against the requirement not to increase disproportionately the compliance burden on business. My officials have worked extensively with business and representative bodies over the past four months to understand the compliance impact of country-by-country reporting and the practicalities of collecting information. I am pleased to see that the OECD work is on track to deliver the September 2014 deadline. I would like to thank business, civil society and the advisory community for their input to date. Work will continue in consultation and discussions with the OECD over the coming months.
The Government want a tax system that is good for jobs, good for growth and good for our economy. I believe that we have taken steps towards achieving all those goals, and I have been grateful for the opportunity to explain why. I would like to underline the fact that we believe businesses should pay the tax that is due. We have been involved in international reforms through the OECD work and been instrumental in encouraging a climate of greater transparency. We continue to welcome the debate.
Football Clubs (Insolvency)
(10 years, 9 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
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank colleagues from all parties for attending this debate, which is incredibly important for all of us who care about the game of football. There are several Members here who I am sure will want to speak about their experiences in constituencies and communities that have been blighted by the consequences of the failure of a football club. This debate will consider two important issues: the general problem of insolvency that affects football and the specific concerns felt by me and numerous other colleagues about the workings of the football creditors rule.
It is an astonishing fact that since 1992, 46% of all clubs that have played in the Premier League or the Football League have been involved in some sort of insolvency proceedings. There have been high-profile cases involving clubs such as Leeds United, Plymouth Argyle, Crystal Palace and Coventry City, which at the moment is going through a particularly torrid time that no football club should have to face again. There have also been insolvencies in the football conference as well as the lower leagues. The problem runs right across the game.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) will wish to talk about the situation at Hereford United, but I too have a particular interest in the fortunes of that club. The first professional football match I ever watched was with my father and brother at Hereford United back in the 1980s. At that time, being a Herefordshire schoolboy, I was happy to watch Hereford United, but I am also a lifelong Manchester United fan. I would go with my school friends to watch Manchester United in the late 1980s, at a time when they were not doing so well in the league—[Hon. Members: “Like now.”] It is amazing how things come around if one waits long enough.
I remember going to Old Trafford in the late 1980s. Not only that club but football has changed with the advent of the Premier League. The great amount of money that has come into football has massively transformed grounds, facilities and players’ salaries. Football is completely different now from what it was 30 years ago. In many ways, that is a good thing, but it is also an issue of great concern. Despite the fact that there has never been more money in football than there is now, there have probably never been more incidents of financial failure and its consequences in the game. I believe that that is partly due to how football finances are structured and administered. It has created a culture of financial irresponsibility, born of the pressure placed on clubs to compete at the highest level to gain the financial prizes available there. That culture of pressure is driving the number of insolvencies in football.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), whom I see in her place, I was a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport when it launched its inquiry into football governance in 2011. Many of the issues highlighted in the report are still current today, three years after the start of the investigation. We considered a number of issues affecting football, but one of our most prominent concerns was what has become known as the football creditors rule, which plays a key part in the insolvency of football clubs.
When a football club goes into administration via a company voluntary arrangement, in which an administrator comes in to restructure the football club’s debts so that it can get back on its feet and playing again, the football creditors rule comes into play, protecting debts owed to other football clubs for things such as transfer payments and debts owed to football players by honouring them in full, whereas other unsecured creditors get just pennies in the pound. For example, when Leeds United went into administration, it was well publicised that former players received owed moneys in full whereas organisations such as St John Ambulance were owed thousands by the club that they did not receive. It has also affected Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. In the past, we have seen unpaid tax revenues, money owed by football clubs—
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On the point about paying players’ wages, I can remember occasions when the Professional Footballers Association—the footballers’ union, if we want to call it that—has had to pay them.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Undoubtedly, in the past, footballers could often be treated poorly by their clubs and had few of the rights that would normally be expected in the workplace. I am certain that no one would want to go back to such a situation, but I will come to how the financial guarantees work to encourage greater risk taking and irresponsibility with the finances of the game, with a direct consequence and knock-on effect for the insolvency of clubs.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Did my hon. Friend just say that under the football creditors rule, football creditors take precedence over the taxman? If so, can he think of any other industry or sporting activity in this country of which that is also true?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The taxman lost his preferred creditor status in 2003. An informal arrangement exists between HMRC and football, and I will come to that, but the taxman is not a preferred creditor. The only preferred unsecured creditors are people within the game of football, who must be compensated in full under the rules of the Premier League and Football League. Other creditors get only pence in the pound. For example, when Crystal Palace went into insolvency, football creditors were paid in full, but non-football creditors received 2p in the pound. When Plymouth Argyle went into administration, again, football creditors were paid in full, but non-football creditors received less than 1p in the pound in compensation for the debts that they were owed.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and he is owed much credit for raising the issue. Given what he just said about the impact of insolvency on non-football creditors in a local community, does he agree that the rule does much greater damage to the reputation of the game of football than perhaps is understood by those in the sport at present?
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. It does enormous damage to the credibility and reputation of football. That point was made by Niall Quinn, a former player and club chairman of great distinction, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. How can it be right that in a community where a club has gone through insolvency, a small business that prints match programmes or paints the stadium receives none of the money that it is owed, while watching a player paid tens of thousands of pounds a week drive out of the gates to the ground in a smart car, having received every penny he was owed? It makes no sense at all. It is seen as a massive injustice and, given the huge amounts of money within the game of football, it cannot be justified in any way for football to reserve preferred status for its own creditors.
The Select Committee called in its 2011 report and its follow-up report in 2013 for the football creditors rule to be scrapped. Numerous debates have been raised in the House about both the generalities of football governance and finance, and specific cases relating to clubs such as Coventry and Leeds. Members have raised their concerns about such clubs in particular. Often in those debates, we have been reassured that the Government’s view is that the rule is one whose time has come, that we should move on and that we should not allow it to continue. I secured this debate to ask the Government where they stand on the football creditors rule.
I am grateful that the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) is here to answer the debate. Often, when we have had such debates, the Minister responding has not been the Minister responsible for insolvency laws in this country. Today we have the insolvency Minister here to answer the debate.
Jesse Norman
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view. He is making a powerful case, and it is doubly good to hear it from someone educated in Hereford, a city whose football club is in some difficulty due to the imbalance between the money sloshing around at the top of the game and the meagre pickings at the middle and lower end.
The issue I want to raise with my hon. Friend is the Government’s position. When I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is Minister with responsibility for sport, she responded:
“The Financial Fair Play rules now introduced across football which, combined with compliance checks…aim to improve financial management and stability...Legislation remains an option if the football authorities do not demonstrate that they can reform their own governance of the game. The Government’s position on the football creditors rule is clear.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 495W.]
I put it to him that, whatever the Government’s position is, it is not “clear”, and that that answer did not particularly clarify it.
Damian Collins
Mr Streeter, you are of course right, but it was an intervention made with such great force and we enjoyed it so much that we were happy to listen to it. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have consistently criticised the football creditors rule, and indeed HMRC brought a legal action against the Football League to try to prevent the rule from being used, but failed. The Government and the sports Minister have consistently said that the Government are prepared to use legislation to intervene if the football authorities will not demonstrate their own desire for progress and action. I believe that the time has come for an update on that situation and for a consideration of how legislation could be used to prevent the football creditors rule being used in insolvency cases. There may be a debate to be had about the role of Government interfering in the organisation of sports and sporting bodies in this country, but this issue is clearly one of fairness that relates to insolvency law and the specialist rules that football has created for itself to protect its own interests at the cost of the community.
When the Football League gave evidence to the Select Committee, its representative said that the league could find no moral justification for the existence of the football creditors rule. That continues to be the case. It is there by regret, but the time has come for it to be removed. When the High Court considered the case that HMRC brought against the Football League, Judge Richards said that although he was unable to find in favour of HMRC and against the Football League with regard to the football creditors rule, the judgment should not in any way be regarded as an endorsement of the rule.
I will now say a little about how the football creditors rule works in effect, and how I think we can get rid of it through legislation. All football clubs are required by the football authorities to honour their debts to other football clubs in full. When a club goes into administration, the football authorities use their control of the prize money and particularly the broadcasting money that is owed to the club—it is due only if the club completes the season. Effectively, when a club goes into administration, the Football League and the Premier League can use that money, which they control, to settle football debts on behalf of the club, and the club’s administrator does not have the power to gain access to that money. The Football League and the Premier League also reserve the right to remove the club’s golden share, which it requires to participate in football competitions. The removal of that golden share would effectively make the club worthless and the threat of its removal is one that the Football League and the Premier League can use to ensure that football debts are honoured in full.
If the football authorities refuse to give up the football creditors rule voluntarily, legislation has a role—we should amend insolvency legislation. We should put the administrator in sole charge of the assets of the club, including the golden share and prize money that should reasonably be expected to be owed to it during the season. The administrator can use all that money to settle the club’s unsecured debts equally and fairly—both football debts and non-football debts.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. Does he agree that on some occasions, the problem has been not only the rule to which he refers, but that in some cases, particularly high-profile cases, chairmen and others in charge of football clubs have spent anticipated revenues, including television money and European money, such as champions league money, long before they are in receipt of it, so that there is very little to distribute even before the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow fails to materialise?
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which gets to the heart of my great concern about how the football creditors rule works in practice. Although the rule is an administrative tool used to protect football, what it encourages is profligate spending, because football debts are guaranteed by the Football League and the Premier League. A club selling a player to another club will not particularly worry about whether the buying club can afford the transfer fee that they have engaged to pay, and the selling club will not mind if the payment of those fees is spread out in instalments over a number of years, because they know that the money is guaranteed by the football authorities. Similarly, players signing lucrative contracts with a club will not need to inquire too much into the finances of that club because they know that the money is guaranteed. There is no other area of business where that is true, because no other area of business has that sort of protection, which I believe encourages massive profligacy and spending within the game of football—there is no element of shared risk, and there are no consequences or downsides.
I also believe that that is why the level of insolvency in football is so high. There are no other industries in this country in which one would look at the companies trading in it and say that it would be normal for the insolvency rate to be 46%. The practical way in which the football creditors rule is implemented is driving that culture and practice. Getting rid of it would stop that culture and practice.
It may well be that the football creditors rule would have to be phased out over a couple of years, to give clubs a chance to rebalance. If the financial fair play rules were properly enforced across all the top tiers of football, in many ways the football creditors rule may not be needed anyway. If enforced, financial fair play would create a culture of correct spending in which clubs would not be able to live beyond their means. They would be unable, year after year, to gamble tomorrow’s money for success today in the hope of moving further up the football pyramid.
We can take action to address that culture by getting rid of the football creditors rule. If the football authorities did not want to get rid of the football creditors rule entirely, they could consider creating a sinking fund to guarantee that unsecured creditors such as local businesses that are owed relatively small amounts of money are always compensated in full, instead of receiving the derisory penny in the pound that they often receive at the moment, which is completely unjust and unfair. For a game that is as wealthy as football, there can be no moral justification for that situation.
Later this week, I will publish my private Member’s Bill on football governance. I am grateful for the support of a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who are all in the Chamber. In that Bill, I set out my view of how insolvency law could be amended to practically eliminate the football creditors rule. I believe that if the football authorities will not demonstrate their desire to do that themselves, it would be a legitimate course of action for us to use Parliament and the law to get rid of the rule.
My Bill also addresses a couple of other important areas related to the insolvency of football clubs and to the culture and practice that I believe drive that insolvency. In addition to getting rid of the football creditors rule, I suggest that there should be a test, which would be particularly relevant to cases such as that of Coventry City, whereby there should be a public declaration of the identity of the owners and investors in a club. I do not think there has ever been a case where the owners of a club have been shrouded in mystery and that club has been a financial success. People rightly question the motivation of people who obscure their identity, often through myriad dummy companies all registered and trading offshore. People question the reasons for that. Football fans should have the right to know the identity of the people who own their club and where their money comes from, which should also be a matter of public investigation.
Alongside that system, we should have a fit and proper person test that is robust and that has teeth, to be administered at the discretion of the football authorities. The situation we have now is ridiculous. In the case of Leeds United in particular, Mr Cellino wants to buy the club. He was formerly convicted of fraud and faces another conviction today, but the Football League might have to wait nine months until the Italian courts hear his appeal case before deciding whether or not to allow him to buy the club. That is totally ludicrous. It should be entirely at the discretion of the football authorities, including the Football Association, as to whether they feel that someone is a fit and proper person.
There is already a helpful precedent for that: the way in which the fit and proper person test is administered by Ofcom with regard to people who may hold a broadcasting licence in the UK. That power was created by the Broadcasting Act 1990 and is administered entirely at the discretion of Ofcom, based on its consideration of whether someone can or is likely to comply with UK broadcasting law, and therefore of whether they are a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Returning to the point about ownership, we recently had a case—about a week or 10 days ago—where the owner of Birmingham City was sentenced to a number of years in jail. It comes back to the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: who are these people who own clubs and what is their credibility? The Football League should have been looking at such people and asking, “What is their credibility?”
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The Birmingham City case is particularly relevant. It is believed that there were grounds for concern about the former chairman of the club—there were outstanding previous charges against him relating to dishonesty in the Hong Kong courts. Very recently, he has been convicted of money laundering. Although he has stepped back from control of the club, I believe his son now runs it in his place. There is nothing the football authorities can do about that. It is quite clear that he should never have been allowed to buy the club in the first place, and his family should have no direct involvement in the club any more.
The Football League should not be fearful of taking legal action against people who want to buy a club—that should be at its discretion. In the United States of America, there is a discretionary test for those who want to own a franchise in major league baseball. It is administered by the league, and by other owners of the league. They will look at the business case, the plan and the credentials of the would-be owner and decide whether they want them in their league. We should have the same rules here. It would probably be right for the Football Association, as the guardian not just of the law, but of the ethics of the game, to administer that test and use it at its discretion. I included such a test in my private Member’s Bill because there may need to be some statutory underpinning of that authority if the football authorities fear legal action being taken against them by people who would otherwise seek to invest in the game.
The hon. Member for Coventry South will speak about Coventry City, but I should like to add that the club’s being run into the ground, its finances being in ruins and its being separated from its ground and stadium seem entirely to suit the financial interests of its mysterious, secret owners. That should never be allowed to happen again. The Football League claims that it knows who owns the club. I believe it should publish all that information, which should be a matter of clear and open record. To its credit, the Premier League said that it would require that to be so, should Coventry play in that league.
The situation of Coventry City is desperately sad and it should never, ever be allowed to happen again. In our consideration of issues relating to the insolvency of clubs, hon. Members should consider what next steps need to be taken to ensure that such things do not happen again.
Other hon. Members wish to speak and I have spoken probably for long enough in setting the scene. I should like the Minister to say what positive action the Government are prepared to consider to move to abolish the football creditors rule, and I should like to hear her thoughts on other matters relating to the culture in football that have a negative influence on the finances of the game. I should also like to hear whether the Government are prepared to back up their criticism of the football creditors rule with action. Will they set out now, or in writing after the debate, a timetable—a schedule—by which they would take action if the football authorities are not prepared to do so?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing this debate. His private Member’s Bill is timely and I wholeheartedly support it, as he knows. We both share considerable frustration with and concern about the inadequacy of the football governance system. It is now apparent to everyone that reform is long overdue, as he said. I intend to speak for just a few minutes about how this issue affects Coventry.
I have spoken many times about my disgust at what has happened to Coventry City football club. The whole affair has been a disgrace, particularly given that some fans have to do a round trip of about 70 miles, which is expensive in the present economic climate. In the past three or four months, the weather has been pretty appalling, too, to say the least. Fans are always the last to know what is happening at a club or who owns it, but they foot the bill. They are treated quite appallingly, to say the least.
This business with Coventry City has been going on for about two years, and it is about time it was resolved by Government action and regulation. That is one reason why I support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I do not need to go into further details, because we have had a number of debates about Coventry, secured by me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who are not here today because they have other business on. We have raised questions, debated the matter two or three times and met Ministers to discuss the issue. We should have got legislation last year, which was promised but never came forward.
Coventry is not the only club to have suffered from poor governance and financial mismanagement, but it is a useful example to discuss, because it has displayed many of the problems endemic in the system. It is for this reason that I asked the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport to consider a short investigation into what has happened to the club. It would be a useful case study to highlight areas where reform is needed, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said. The idea would be to hear from both sides in the dispute and discuss what pitfalls might have been avoided had legislation been in place. I have yet to hear back from the Committee Chairman, and I do not know whether the Committee will accept my suggestions. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman considered supporting me in that, as it may help to make a compelling case for legislation.
The hon. Gentleman explained the football creditors rule well, and I do not intend to go back over that. Coventry City FC has had a number of problems and the football creditors rule is just one among many. However, the creditors rule rewards poor management and irresponsible governance. It is one rule for the football industry and another for all other businesses in the economy. Why should a club be responsible if, once it is in administration, it will not be obliged to pay its debts? Footballers’ salaries and other clubs must be paid before anyone else, even secured creditors and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The taxpayer is not considered until the players’ huge salaries are paid in full and, in Coventry, the rent that is due to be paid to the stadium is not considered.
Coventry’s Ricoh arena is owned by Arena Coventry Ltd, which in turn is half owned by Coventry city council, but the rent owed on the stadium is just ignored, as that company is not a football creditor. No other business failure would be protected in this way. What company would be able to pay its employees astronomical wages it could not afford?
The club is protected from its debt obligations to the taxpayer, in respect of rent arrears; to cleaners; to St John Ambulance; and to kit suppliers—the list goes on, as the hon. Gentleman said. The creditors rule seems to protect clubs from bad management and encourages recklessness. Of equal concern is the fact that most Football League regulations give it flexibility of application to suit individual circumstances, so that organisations dealing with football clubs cannot rely with any certainty on how the rules will be applied. This lack of clarity is a problem; it leaves organisations unclear of their position.
When a club goes into administration, the golden share held by each club, giving it membership of the FL and permission to play in the league, is suspended and reverts to the FL. The FL normally allows the club to play on to see if things can be resolved—a lot of times they are not resolved—but football creditors will still need to be paid. The operation of this rule has been an issue in many football administrations, including that of Coventry City Football Club Ltd.
There was a huge debate about whether the golden share lay in the hands of CCFC Ltd or its parent company, Coventry City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd. Ultimately, it was clarified that the share sat with CCFC Ltd, but that some or all of the players’ contracts are with CCFC (Holdings), which should not be the case under FL rules. That clarification came too late, and by this point the administrator had already sold assets. In any event, CCFC Ltd has been through administration and is being liquidated. All football creditors have been paid in full, while other creditors, notably ACL, the owner of the stadium, will not be paid.
The Select Committee launched its report on domestic football governance in December 2010, publishing the report in July 2011. The report was very clear: the Football Association was in need of urgent reform. Leagues—the Premier League in particular—have too great an influence over the decision-making processes of the FA. The game has seen increasing commercialisation, and there is a distinct lack of financial regulation. This has led to significant financial risk-taking among football clubs. The Select Committee urged the industry to reform itself; otherwise, there should be legislation. Football authorities put forward proposals for reform, but their proposals simply did not address the key issue. I hope that the Minister will deal with some of those issues.
On 30 April last year, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), when he was Minister for Sport, wrote to the Select Committee, agreeing with its recommendations, which he described as “much needed”. He said:
“in the absence of significant progress with these by the beginning of next season, we should seek to introduce legislation as soon as practically possible.”
I agree. We really want to know what the legislation is and what the Government’s timetable is. On at least two occasions, I have asked when the Government will take action, and have been told that they are considering and looking at the issue, but they do not tell us what their proposals are. That is why I agree with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe that we should have a time scale and should know what the proposals are. Everybody should support him in trying to get the Government to come clean on this.
A lot of these companies can be intimidating. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Football League being frightened to take action; a lot of these companies want to go to court, and that can lead to individuals being intimidated. These companies would not get away with some of their practices anywhere else; the mafia probably would look like saints next to them.
The right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent continued:
“I have already been given drafting authority by the Parliamentary Counsel, and my officials have started working up a draft Bill and supporting documentation, should football fail to deliver. This Bill will reflect the conclusions of your report.”
Damian Collins
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Government produced the draft Bill and supporting documentation?
Mr Cunningham
That would be very helpful. If we saw what was in the draft Bill, we could decide whether we could support it, and I am not just talking about Opposition Members; the hon. Gentleman might disagree with some of the draft Bill, for example. There is a clear promise on the creditors rule, too. The Committee’s report stated that if the courts were to reject the challenge to the creditors rule by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Government should introduce legislation to abolish it—the High Court has clearly upheld the challenge.
I conclude by saying to the Minister that football has failed to deliver, and it is now time for the Government to deliver. When will we see the promised Bill before Parliament? What more do the Government need before they decide to legislate?
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I apologise to colleagues in advance for being absent for the remainder of the debate. I wish to speak in the debate in the main Chamber on Ukraine.
I start by rebutting the claim, often made, that we politicians should butt out of discussing football because football is a business and it should not be in our remit to meddle in it. Leaving aside the rather unbusinesslike practices that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) outlined, I make this comparison: if a supermarket—Tesco, say—folded in my constituency, I could comfort my constituents with the fact that they can buy their bread and milk from Sainsbury’s. I could provide no equivalent comfort to Portsmouth football club fans by pointing out that they can buy their season tickets from Southampton, a bit further along the coast. That is clearly nonsense, and it goes to the heart of what is special and unique about football clubs. They are more than just businesses. Football clubs bring tremendous economic value to an area, but they also carry tremendous social value.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in raising the issue, his Bill—which I am happy to support—and his work on the Select Committee. I pay tribute to all the other members of the Committee, too, for their sterling work on raising this issue and on concentrating the Government’s mind on getting that result. My hon. Friend spoke eloquently on football’s finance and governance problems, so I will constrain my comments to putting on record some of the trials that faced Portsmouth football club, which, happily, recently managed to achieve the largest and fastest ever 100% community buy-out.
The club, which was established in 1898, has had no fewer than nine owners in the past 15 years. The supporters’ rescue bid was triggered in January 2012 as the club entered administration for the second time in two years, with debts of £100 million. A scheme was launched inviting fans to pledge a £1,000 investment in Pompey Supporters Trust, starting with a down payment of £100. Discussions were also held with high-net-worth individuals. The trust’s plan was to create a new legal entity, Portsmouth Community Football Club Ltd. The trust would invest in that new entity the share capital raised from its members. Alongside that, there would be direct investment by wealthier fans. The trust would be the majority shareholder in the new club, with community interests further protected by a shareholders’ agreement.
In October 2012, the Football League announced that the trust had won its support as the preferred bidder. By then, the trust had received pledges from more than 2,000 fans who had paid the initial £100 sum. Eleven presidents pledged a further £1.5 million, having already provided the administrator with £400,000 in cash to keep the club afloat. Obviously, they gave that cash without any guarantee that they would take over the club. The trust put together a £2.75 million loan from a local property developer and Pompey fan, secured against the future ownership of the stadium and backed by a £1.5 million loan from Portsmouth city council, which further completed the bid.
Chainrai, who was the default owner and who retained a £17 million charge on the stadium, refused the trust’s £3 million offer for the stadium. Eventually, despite prolonged legal battles and counter-offers, in April 2013 Chainrai accepted an out-of-court offer of £3 million for the stadium, along with a further £450,000 for the release of the floating charge against the club’s other assets.
I could talk at great length about the trials that we went through to secure that deal, but I will give three examples. Before an administrator was even appointed to kick off the process, a football administrator who thought they were going to be appointed was already in the club trying to strip assets. When we were putting together the business plan and trying to figure out and unravel the complex web of who owed what to whom, which resulted from having nine owners in 15 years, we could not see the football authorities’ rulebook, which would have let us know where the parachute payments should have gone and under what circumstances. It is hard enough for a trust to put together a business plan, but in those circumstances it was nearly impossible.
There was a lack of transparency, and I know that problem is adversely affecting Coventry City at the moment. At the eleventh hour, our bid was nearly knocked out by a coalition of people who arrived on the scene without having previously expressed an interest in taking over the club. They claimed that they were going to offer more for the club, which was clearly an attempt to knock our bid out of the competition. Those were dark days indeed, and a strong supporters’ trust bid was made fragile by the lack of a level playing field.
Happily, the trust was successful, and it took a club such as Pompey to achieve it. Anyone who has played us knows the tenacity of our fans. They are troupers, and it was their faith, and the support of a few individuals who were prepared to risk a considerable amount, that meant that we were successful, that Pompey are still playing, and that the good guys won.
I see Portsmouth football club as a trailblazer, and I hope it is a catalyst for change. If we do not change, many of our much-loved clubs will not be around in the future. The ordeal was worth while, and the club is now making a profit. There has been considerable investment in the grounds, and I am happy to report that Portsmouth won their regional FA community club competition last Sunday.
The football authorities have moved somewhat, but they have not moved enough. In this House, we have to show the same resolve that Pompey fans showed during their battle and see through the reforms. I am happy to support this debate, and I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s Bill. We must be resolute in getting a proper finance and governance structure for our national game.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I apologise for arriving late, but I had to serve on a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a great pleasure to support both this debate and the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins).
I am an unabashedly huge football fan, and I have two brief points that are slightly too long for an intervention. My first point is on the Insolvency Act 1986. I represent North Swindon, and we have Swindon Town football club, which has entered administration twice and avoided it on many other occasions. We have had a number of owners, some good and some less good. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) mentioned St John Ambulance, and his point applies to Swindon, too. We had a number of good local businesses—genuine suppliers—that were left high and dry each time the club’s ownership changed. Various wealthy people managed to get away completely unscathed while those who were working hard to support our vital community football club were left with their fingers burned, which made it a lot harder for the town to continue trusting the new owners.
My second point is on transparency. We have heard about the situations in Portsmouth and Coventry, and the same applies to many football clubs across the country. As supporters, we simply do not know who is responsible for the football club and who is ultimately making the decision to spend more money than the club can viably sustain. I have previously called for every football club to have an elected fans representative on the board. Ultimately, we need business people who are good enough to raise sufficient money, but stupid enough to go and waste it chasing domestic success when running the club, and an elected fans representative would at least always ensure transparency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) described people trying to work out who the administrator was, but the fans representative would provide a link inside the football club. The football clubs would benefit, because at the end of the day, we long-suffering supporters are the customers. We buy the season tickets, the replica shirts, the Christmas presents, the programmes and the pies at half time. Having that rep on the board would offer a link to those customers. The rep could suggest where things are going right and where there are further opportunities to grow, as well as perhaps being the front that liaises with the local community, building trust in and support for the club.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I also apologise for not arriving on time for the debate. I was also on a Delegated Legislation Committee and I took a little bit of time to get down here. I am pleased to have the chance to support this debate. I support Leicester City, and have done since I was a wee boy. We are looking forward to going back to the premier league, but we have had difficulties in the past. The loyalty of supporters and their contribution to their club, whether socially, physically, monetarily or in time—they might attend all the matches—are important. I totally support the hon. Gentleman’s point that the clubs should have within their administration some method whereby supporters clubs, or individuals on behalf of supporters clubs, can have an input into what happens.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I agree with. I see that representative being elected through the supporters trust network. We have had a number of Supporters Direct events in Parliament, and we have all seen at first hand the fantastic work that it does.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend raised an interesting idea. Does he agree that there is a necessity for the public declaration of the ownership to be clear? That was not clear with Leeds United and when the chief executive gave evidence to the Select Committee, he said that he did not know who owned the club. That kind of situation cannot be allowed to continue.
Justin Tomlinson
That is the absolute minimum we need. Supporters and suppliers should have a right to know who the custodian of their community football club is. The fans representative could then give a day-to-day commentary where appropriate and link the supporters and the club. That would be a win-win, particularly for the Football League, in ensuring that fans are engaged with the football club. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need that public declaration.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be more transparency within the Football League? I and many of my constituents support Coventry City, and the Football League has been completely not transparent in allowing the club’s owners to move it to Northampton, without any proper plan to get it back where it belongs in Coventry.
Justin Tomlinson
I know that my hon. Friend has worked tirelessly to support the long-suffering fans of Coventry City. Long gone are the days of the 1987 FA cup final, when Coventry had a 3-2 win over Tottenham. Watching that on the television is one of my earlier memories. My brother went to Coventry university, and it was the only time he was interested in football. He was pleased by the result on the day.
We keep coming back to the point on transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North made the point that there would be alternatives if a supermarket was closing, but that people generally have only one community club to support. Yes, there will be good times and there will be bad times—in Swindon’s case, there have been a few more bad times than good times of late, but that adds to the excitement—but it should always be about transparency for the fans and for suppliers, who work hard to do their bit to support their community clubs and often give generous deals. We cannot simply abandon them and create this unique rule that protects wealthy people within football. I say that as a huge football fan myself. We have to do right by the community, the fans and the suppliers.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones): whoever owns the club, they have been playing ducks and drakes with the fans in Coventry. The fans are vitally important, but they are playing a guessing game on whether they will go back to the stadium or whether there will be a new stadium and, if so, where it will be located. It is 20 questions all the time, and that is how contemptuous they are of the people and fans of Coventry, quite frankly.
Justin Tomlinson
I agree wholeheartedly with that. What frustrates me, whether it is the Premier League or the Football League, is that it is in their interest that football clubs remain viable and continue to grow. It is a brand, and by and large it does work. The frustration was highlighted in the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North. She said that at the eleventh hour—a huge amount of work had been done, the community had raised money and different people had pledged money—the goalposts seemed to be moved.
The Football League and the Premier League should have all the information registered and available, so that those seeking to step in to rescue, protect and save those valuable community assets are armed with the information that they need. In some cases, football clubs will disappear because it is just not meant to be, and some clubs will do better than they should, but that is just the nature of competitive sport. Where a set of owners have been reckless and the community wants to step up, whether that is through a new business owner or a community, fan-owned club, they should be able to have that information. The Football League and the Premier League should have it at their fingertips.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is why it is important to have a proper fit and proper person test, administered by the Football Association, that can be done quickly. It can assess whether a new bid is worth pursuing or worth looking at, saying, “Is it from a fit and proper organisation or is it spurious?” If it is spurious, it should be set aside. It should not be down to the administrator to get the most money regardless of where it is coming from.
Justin Tomlinson
I agree with my hon. Friend. A whole review of the fit and proper test is needed, because my understanding is that while one of the tests is that a person must have a certain amount of money deposited in a bank account, they do not necessarily have to put that money into the club. I have seen that with Swindon Town. Wealthy people take over a club and have the potential to cover its liabilities, which would cover the suppliers, but that money is not necessarily used.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. If we go back 15 to 20 years—I cannot remember the exact date—an individual wanted to buy Manchester United. Everyone was led to believe that he was going to buy the club, but at the end of the day he could not put the deal together. He totally misled people for some months.
Justin Tomlinson
I believe the individual ended up at Carlisle, and the club had a chequered time under his stewardship. Time and again, we are seeing people coming in for various different reasons without the interests of those football clubs at heart. I understand the world of business, but these clubs are valuable community assets. The Government need to apply pressure to the Football League and the Premier League, because it is in their interest to get their houses in order.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is being gracious and kind in giving way again. We are referring to the English Football League. Will there be an opportunity for the Minister to look at what is happening in Scotland and the other leagues? I think of Rangers FC, which is an institution. I have supported the team since I was a young boy. The club has dipped in and out of administration and still has difficulties in the board room. The club is important: at its past three matches, 115,000 fans have come to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we have to look beyond the English league to the leagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales?
Justin Tomlinson
I absolutely agree. The issue affects football clubs across the country. In Scotland, there is the worrying experience with Hearts. As with Portsmouth, people are trying to do deals, but even the club cannot identify the owner.
Damian Collins
I just make the helpful point that many aspects of football are devolved. I originally wanted the debate to encompass Scotland, too, but I was advised that it could not.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
In conclusion, there are huge amounts of good will towards sport and football, whether that comes from supporters or suppliers. We need to do whatever we can to ensure that they are equipped with knowledge, so that things can be remedied as quickly and swiftly as possible when they go wrong. That is absolutely vital for our local communities.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Streeter, for allowing me to make a short speech. I did not intend to speak when I entered the Chamber, but the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) raises is important and we should support his endeavour to get the law affecting football clubs changed.
I am a long-suffering fan of Coventry City football club, like probably thousands of my constituents, who are extremely depressed and disappointed about what is happening to their football club. All football supporters follow their clubs for different reasons, and all experience tremendous highs and lows. Most probably get more lows than highs—unless they support one of the glory teams or are one of what I used to call Alex’s armchair army, supporting a team that might be many miles from where they live. Regardless of football affiliation, we must recognise that football clubs are community-based assets. They are not like any other type of business. If, for example, the customers of a supermarket chain suddenly decided they did not like what it was offering, they would usually abandon it and go elsewhere. Football supporters, however, regardless of how bad their team is at times, stick with it and support the club through thick and thin—or thin and thinner, in the case of my team at the moment. We must realise that; the clubs are embedded in communities.
Transparency has been raised several times. The people who follow clubs week after week, spending money, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, on season tickets, shirts and all sorts of things to support their club, deserve some transparency. They deserve to be able to hold their club’s owners to account. As to Coventry City football club, we do not even know who owns it. Many of the constituents whom I speak to are mortified that they cannot even find out who is to blame for its present situation. We need more accountability. We should never allow people to take on a football club that is embedded in a community, and then for whatever reason use it as a toy, thinking they can abandon the community, lift the football club up like a moveable commodity, and take it elsewhere.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When we talk about wages, salaries and ownership, we tend to forget that football started with individuals playing in the street. The moral of the story is that it started with the fans, who created the teams in the first place; yet the fans get kicked in the teeth all the time when things go wrong.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman and I do not often see eye to eye, but we probably do in this instance. Coventry City were a factory team, and started in the 19th century as a group of people from the Singer factory, who came together to play football. From that a great club was formed, which has lasted more than 125 years. We need to make sure we can see that the people running football clubs are fit and proper people. The clubs are not just commodities that can be shifted from person to person and area to area. They are organisations that communities depend on, particularly in a financial sense. When Coventry City left Coventry, it left a huge hole in the city, and that has particularly affected the local economy.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who is doing a fabulous job of raising the issues. He deserves every support, and I hope that the Minister will show him that she is in touch with the issue and willing to take action on behalf of millions of football fans throughout the country.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), and the hon. Members for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) and for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). There was also a good late substitution when the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) came on to the pitch. Most of all I thank the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing the debate. The manner in which he advanced his excellent, eloquent argument was first class, and he set the tone for the rest of the debate. He closed his remarks by explaining that the issue is one that arguably affects all our communities. It certainly affects millions of football fans.
I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) was here, because she is a fan of Liverpool football club, and Bill Shankly, one of this country’s greatest ever managers, famously said:
“Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”
In many ways that is true, as we have heard today. Football makes a remarkable contribution to society. In my own patch, about a fifth of Hartlepool’s population travelled to Cardiff’s Millennium stadium to see Hartlepool United against Sheffield Wednesday in the league one play-off final in 2005, where we were cruelly robbed by an appalling refereeing decision. [Interruption.] It was a fabulous stadium.
Football provides a place with a sense of identity and belonging, and a recurring theme of the debate has been that clubs are much more than merely businesses. They are vital social institutions that bring and bind communities such as the people of Hartlepool together. There is a strong case for saying that in matters of business, governance, ownership, transparency about those matters and insolvency, the wider effects on society and communities should be considered.
It always strikes me as odd that, given football’s central importance to our society and communities, its finances are often precarious. Every year, Deloitte, a firm for which I used to work—I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—produces a review of football finance. The latest review showed that in the 2011-12 season, the total revenues of the 92 clubs in the top four divisions of English football exceeded £3 billion for the first time. However, the Premier League accounted for almost four fifths of that total. Lower down the leagues, it is a different story. In the 2011-12 season, the average revenue of a league one club was £5 million, with an average net loss of £2.4 million; and in league two revenue was £3.3 million, with an average net loss of £0.3 million.
My local club, Hartlepool United, has had its fair share of flirtations with insolvency, although not in recent years, thankfully. We are infamous for a record number of re-elections to the Football League, and in the 1980s there was a time when we owed £52,000 to the Inland Revenue and a six-figure sum to other creditors. We were days away, in 1983, from being wound up, and the bailiffs took the goal posts, goal nets and grass cutter to pay the debt—not that we noticed much, because that year we finished third bottom, with a goal difference of minus 30. The only people below us, funnily enough, were Hereford United. It is funny how things go. We were actually wound up in the High Court in 1992-93 but the town’s club was saved by a great man—Harold Hornsey—and that helped to put Hartlepool United on a much better, sound financial footing.
Jim Shannon
Even though a club may be small, it makes a contribution to its town or city, and to society, and gives people pride even when it is not playing as well as it might or as well as people would like. Those are important factors for communities, and we should not take away from that. Perhaps a club will never become a Manchester United, Liverpool or Rangers, but it can always be an Ards football club, or a Hartlepool United. Those things are important to society.
Mr Wright
I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman. In my lifetime, Hartlepool United will become a Manchester United or a Liverpool, and I will live to see us lift the champions league trophy, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong in that respect. He is right, however, about the vital contribution that clubs make to local businesses. Hartlepool borough council recently undertook an assessment of Hartlepool United’s economic impact on local businesses and, astonishingly, the club provides something like £5 million to Hartlepool’s economy.
The figures I have quoted show how inherently uncertain is the business model on which much of football is based. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said that 46% of clubs have been through a formal insolvency procedure since 1992. No other sector of the economy has had that level of insolvency, which highlights—this was one of the hon. Gentleman’s most articulate points—the possibility of reckless spending. Entry into the premier league—the most exciting and followed league on Earth—could mean as much as £50 million to a club. It is the glittering prize to which all supporters and owners aspire, but it leads to reckless gambles in the transfer market, which could undermine the financial viability and long-term security of a club. Some argue that the football creditors rule prevents clubs from spending money on players whom it cannot afford, but we have heard today that that is far from the case. The football creditors rule means that there is no inherent brake on transfer spending or on—as the hon. Gentleman said—the shared risk of a club not being paid for the transfer of a player, because football creditors are paid in full at the expense of other unsecured creditors.
Damian Collins
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. Does he agree that, without the creditors rule, clubs would have to be much more open about their financial status, because that would be a prerequisite of clubs wanting to enter into transactions with them?
Mr Wright
That is a fair point. The insolvency rule specifically, as well as the hon. Gentleman’s wider point about governance and transparency, would be better for the game. He also suggested replacing the football creditors rule with some form of sinking fund, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister is working with the Football League, the Football Association and others to examine such a proposal.
The rule can often act as a drag on a club returning to speedy financial health. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North was here earlier, because Portsmouth football club is now owned by the fans, but still has a significant liability of some £7 million owed to ex-players, which the supporters, because of the football creditors rule, must pay in full. That cannot be a good way of getting the club back to financial health. The need to curb the tendency to overspend makes the financial fair play rules, which cap the salaries of league one and league two clubs against a percentage of their turnover, so important, but are the rules the full answer? What will the Minister do to ensure that they are complied with and enforced?
The essence of today’s debate, which has been articulated by many hon. Members, is this: why should we have the football creditors rule if it means that clubs and players are paid in full ahead of all other creditors when a club enters insolvency? This quote from former Sunderland chairman, Niall Quinn, has been mentioned before, but it is worth repeating, because it sums up the problems of the game. He said:
“The fan in the street meets the guy who printed the programmes who didn’t get paid and he sees the player driving out in the big car who was paid, and I think that’s damaging.”
As mentioned by several hon. Gentlemen, there seems to have been a marked shift in tone and emphasis since the Government response to the original Culture, Media and Sport Committee report in 2011, which stated:
“We have sympathy for those who described the consequences of the rule as ‘morally indefensible’.”
“Morally indefensible” is an extremely strong phrase, and the Government sympathise with the position, from which I can infer that the Government wanted to see an end to the rule and wanted to move, through legislation if necessary, as quickly as possible. After the follow-up investigation by the Select Committee, however, the Government response in April 2013 stated that the Government hope that financial fair play rules will
“negate the need for football to rely on the Football Creditors Rule in cases of club insolvencies. However, we will monitor the effect this self-regulation has on the financial discipline and solvency of clubs, and, if necessary, will re-consider whether legislation is needed to address this issue.”
The tone is markedly different. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) also referred to a written parliamentary question from last month, in response to which the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant),said:
“The Financial Fair Play rules now introduced across football which, combined with compliance checks that the FA and league administrators carry out on participating clubs, aim to improve financial management and stability across the leagues…Legislation remains an option if the football authorities do not demonstrate that they can reform their own governance of the game…The Government’s position on the football creditors rule is clear.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 495W.]
As we have heard time and again in today’s debate, the position is far from clear. The Government seem to be shying away from the necessary heavy tackle. What are the criteria for legislation to be brought forward? What is the time scale on such legislation? How long do clubs have to demonstrate reform of governance and financial management before the Government act?
There is a wider point here about insolvency policy in general. The Opposition are keen to improve the insolvency regime, so that the public and investors have greater confidence that delinquent directors who are unfit to run a company are pursued efficiently and effectively, which is not the case under this Government. In 2012, just a fifth of reports passed to the Insolvency Service by insolvency professionals resulted in a disqualification court order or an undertaking, compared with 45% 10 years ago. Why has there been such a drop? Why are the Government allowing unfit directors to walk away from their responsibilities? What are the Government going to do about it? Last week, we tabled an amendment to the Deregulation Bill to scrap the need for insolvency practitioners to submit certain forms in hard copy and allow them to do so online, as a means of streamlining the process and ensuring that insolvency policy can be brought up to speed. Will the Minister accept that?
I thank all hon. Members for contributing to today’s debate, which has been incredibly important. We have seen a cross-party approach to this important matter, and I hope that the Minister will provide what hon. Members are calling for: greater clarity and a plan to address the wider point about an insolvency policy that is allowing delinquent directors to get off scot-free both in football and elsewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
I thank the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for calling for this debate. He has shown his commitment to football issues over several years—issues that many hon. Members feel strongly about.
Football is a fundamental aspect of British life. I married into a family of Evertonians. My children were wearing Everton babygros before they reached the age of one—the indoctrination started early—so they have absolutely no choice in the matter of whom to support. The financial health of football clubs is a hot topic on both the terraces and the sofas of Britain. Fans are perpetually nervous about which club will be the next to struggle or fail and endlessly discuss clubs’ costs and budgets. The Government appreciate the part that football clubs play at all levels across British society. They are a fundamental part of the social fabric of communities up and down the country.
None the less, the rules that govern corporate life cannot be selectively applied. Those who deal with a football club—its suppliers, its employees, the Crown—should have the same confidence that they will be paid as they would if they were dealing with any other business in any other industry. Insolvency is a risk—hopefully a low one—in all industries, including football. No honest person runs a business expecting it to fail, but when there is failure, it is important to have an insolvency process that is fair and transparent and, where possible, saves viable businesses; that applies as much to football as anything else. The UK’s insolvency framework was recently judged by the World Bank to be 7th best out of those of 189 nations; it came ahead of France, Germany and the United States.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out that quite a number of clubs have experienced financial difficulties in recent years. The majority of premier and Football League clubs that have become formally insolvent in the last 20 years have entered the insolvency procedure known as administration.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Does the Minister intend to answer my questions, and those of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)? What are the contents of the legislation that is to be proposed by the Government? Will the Minister support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill? Alternatively, may we have a date for when the Government will introduce legislation? The situation has been going on for far too long—for about two years—and we have heard the evidence from Coventry, which is a good test case.
Jenny Willott
If the hon. Gentleman gave me some time, I might be able to answer some of his questions.
Most clubs that have entered insolvency have gone into administration. The primary objective of an administrator is to rescue the company wherever possible. If the business can keep going, that is the best outcome for employees and other stakeholders. Administration is therefore a rescue procedure and, judged on that criterion alone, football administrators have been successful. In spite of the number of clubs facing difficulty, as highlighted by a number of hon. Members today, no Football League club has gone out of business mid-season since the demise of Aldershot in 1992.
Administrators are governed by statute. Their primary focus is on rescuing the company, but the survival of the company or business will always be balanced against the interests of the creditors. Put simply, an administrator cannot save the company if that is not in the interests of the creditors. As was highlighted by the hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), generally, rescuing a football club is in the broad interests of the creditors and the fans. That is because the alternative to a rescue out of administration is liquidation, in which a club’s assets are turned into cash, its affairs are wound up and any remaining funds are distributed to creditors.
On liquidation, football players’ contracts are void and they receive what is known as a free transfer, which means that no transfer fee need be paid to the liquidated club. That is clearly not in the interests of creditors, as the players’ contracts are an important asset of the club, being worth significant amounts of money. As hon. Members have said, including the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Football League is in essence a members’ club, with all the clubs having a share in it, sometimes known as the golden share. To continue membership of this club and to retain the share, members must abide by the rules. Among the rules is the Football League’s insolvency policy.
One aspect of that insolvency policy, as we have discussed today, is the football creditors rule, under which all football creditors must be paid in full if a club is to remain a member of the Football League. The list of football creditors is long, so it would be slightly tedious to read out, but it includes players, the staff of the club, the leagues, the Football Association and other clubs, as was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Other than in exceptional circumstances, if the football creditors rule is not followed, the club will lose its share in the Football League. Without the share, the club cannot take part in league matches and will in effect cease to trade. If a football club is in administration, the loss of the share will almost inevitably result in liquidation, which, as I said, voids all player contracts. If that happens, the football club is in effect dead, which is disastrous for all classes of creditor, because there is no value in a club that has been kicked out of the league and has no players.
Damian Collins
What the Minister says is correct, but that is down to the rules of the Football League. We could amend insolvency law to give the administrator the power to compensate all unsecured creditors equally and fairly, and it would then be a matter for the Football League to decide what it did with the club after the administration.
Jenny Willott
The administrators are regulated professionals and are obliged by law to perform their functions in the interests of the company’s creditors as a whole. They are complying with insolvency law. The administrators are not bound by the Football League’s rules on football creditors; they are required by law to treat all unsecured creditors equally. Those are the rules under which administrators operate, but it is clearly in the interests of a potential purchaser to abide by the Football League’s rules and to ensure that football creditors are paid in full, to be able to keep the club operating. It is usually in the best interests of administrators to sell to someone who will do that to keep the business operating and keep the club playing as part of the league. If the purchaser does not do that, there is a significant risk that the Football League will not allow the club to compete, and the purchaser would then own a worthless club.
Damian Collins
I question that, on behalf of non-football creditors. Under insolvency, they might get less than 1p for every pound that they are owed. What interest of theirs does the process serve? They are in effect watching football creditors being compensated fully, but are themselves walking away with what in any other administration would be considered practically nothing.
Jenny Willott
It is important to remember that the money being used to pay the football creditors is not drawn from the assets being used to fund the other unsecured creditors. It is not the same pot of money.
Damian Collins
The Minister makes an important point, but this is where legislation might be necessary, because the football authorities will withhold money that is due to the club at the end of the season to carry out, in effect, their own administration process by settling football debts that the club cannot manage. We should make it a requirement that administrators have access to those funds that are due to the club at the end of the season, so that they can be factored into the administration of the club.
Jenny Willott
This was looked at fairly recently by the High Court, which decided that those funds did not count as assets of the club. The assets of the club have to be divided up in accordance with insolvency law, under which the administrator has to look at all the unsecured creditors. I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but following the High Court ruling, I believe that those funds do not count as assets of the club.
Damian Collins
Under the Football League rules, those funds are not necessarily due until the club completes the season. If the administrator were free to carry on the administration until the end of the season, I do not see why the administrator could not reasonably draw on those funds as well.
Jenny Willott
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I have to confess that I do not know the answer. If it is okay with him, I will write to him after the debate to clarify that point.
When a football club is sold, which takes it out of insolvency, the purchaser generally funds the payment of the football creditors, or other funds that do not belong to the club are used. A different pot of money is therefore paying for the football creditors. That is one of the reasons why the football creditors rule does not breach existing insolvency law. Were the funds to come from the same pot, it would breach the law, because it would be treating different unsecured creditors differently. Nevertheless, today and on a number of occasions in the past, it has been suggested that the football creditors rule should be abolished through legislation. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe has made that point today.
The number of Football League club insolvencies has declined significantly in recent seasons. In the 2003-04 season alone, six clubs became insolvent. Five years ago, there were around three or four failures per season. Happily, however, there have been no football insolvencies at all so far this season and only two in the season before that, and in one of those there were no football creditors, so the situation seems to be improving slightly. Insolvency is not the cause of a football business’s problems; it is a symptom arising from an underlying lack of financial stability.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and other hon. Members mentioned financial fair play; the football authorities have made significant moves in recent years to put clubs on a stronger financial footing. They have introduced an early warning system for tax debts, salary caps and an agreement on financial fair play rules, which will ensure that clubs do not spend more than they earn. Those measures are possibly already having a beneficial impact in increasing financial stability, which will lead to a decrease in the number of insolvencies.
Jim Shannon
I intervened earlier to ask hon. Members what talks the Minister has had with other Administrations, because the Scottish Football Association is separate, and sport is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. I am not trying to be nasty, but I want details on any discussions that the Minister has had with the devolved Administrations on these problems, which are very apparent in other regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Jenny Willott
The issues that the hon. Gentleman is raising are more connected to the administration of the game of football as a whole than to insolvency. I have not discussed those issues with counterparts in other Administrations, but Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport may have done. I am happy to write to him to clarify that point; I do not know the answer to his question off the top of my head.
It is important that we encourage the football authorities to continue with the financial fair play rules, to ensure that football has a solid financial base on which to operate. If there are no insolvencies, the football creditors rule does not come into play, so we get around the problem.
Damian Collins
I do not think that it is fair to say that if there are no insolvencies, we should not look at getting rid of the football creditors rule. In her opening remarks the Minister said that the rules of corporate life cannot be selectively applied, but that is what is happening. It should not; it should stop.
Jenny Willott
Insolvency law is applied equally to football clubs and any other businesses facing insolvency.
Damian Collins
The Minister says that, but there is no other sector of industry in this country that has a rule whereby it treats one group of unsecured creditors—its friends—differently from another group. I know that this has been tested in the High Court and is legal, so clubs can do it. The purpose of the debate is to question whether it should be legal, or whether we should stop it.
Jenny Willott
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is highlighting. I have sympathy for the views he is expressing.
Mr Iain Wright
To back up what the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) says with a specific example, Plymouth Argyle FC went into administration in 2011. Its football creditors were paid in full, but the unsecured creditors received a dividend of 0.77p in the pound—less than a penny. That cannot be a fair means of making sure a business can become viable. Will the Minister change legislation to change that?
Jenny Willott
Changing the legislation would not necessarily have made any difference. The money that goes to pay the football creditors does not come out of the pot of assets that is used to pay the unsecured creditors. There is no evidence that if we changed the football creditors rule there would be more money available for the unsecured creditors. They would quite possibly still get exactly the same return on a pound. Clearly, in the case the hon. Gentleman cited, the return was extremely low, but I have seen no evidence to suggest that it could have been greater. It is not the same pot of money that is used to pay each group.
To put the matter in the context of insolvencies as a whole, in 2013 there were about 20,000 corporate insolvencies in England and Wales, of which around 2,400 were administrations. The Government feel that using primary legislation to outlaw a provision that is relatively infrequently used is disproportionate, particularly given that the industry is already trying to improve the underlying financial stability of clubs via the financial fair play rules. Other than those to which special regimes apply, all insolvencies are subject to the same legislation, the Insolvency Act 1986. It would be potentially confusing for users of that legislation if we modified it just for football insolvencies. No other industry is treated differently under general insolvency legislation, and the Government feel that there is no compelling reason why football club insolvencies should be.
Football is undoubtedly incredibly important for fans. I understand the frustration of fans whose clubs become insolvent through no fault of those in the stands or on the terraces. Given the emotional importance of football for fans, I understand how distressing it can be when a club goes into insolvency. However, as I said at the start, the rules that govern corporate life cannot be selectively applied—they apply across the board—and those who act as directors of football clubs should act properly in execution of their duties.
A number of hon. Members have highlighted concerns about directors. The law allows the Secretary of State to undertake civil proceedings against company directors who are found to have been culpable in the failure of a company. However, until a person has been disqualified, they are free to act as a director of any number of companies in the UK, irrespective of their track record or any criminal charges that may be pending, although someone who is personally bankrupt or subject to bankruptcy restrictions is prohibited from acting as a director.
Hon. Members have mentioned the owners and directors test, which places additional restrictions on clubs. I understand that those restrictions are increasingly based on intelligence, and that football authorities are co-operating to make the test as effective as possible.
Overseas convictions were mentioned. At the moment, there is nothing to prevent a person who has been convicted of offences in connection with a company overseas from acting as a director of a UK company. However, the “Transparency and Trust” discussion paper published last year included a proposal to enable the Secretary of State to bring disqualification proceedings in the UK against anybody convicted of a serious offence in connection with a company overseas. We will publish the Government response to that consultation soon. The issue is currently being considered.
We want the UK to be a trusted place for people to carry out business. Part of that is ensuring that directors of limited companies take responsibility for their actions and have regard to creditors and employees. The majority of directors do that effectively, but action can and will be taken against those who do not play by the rules. When a company enters formal insolvency, such as administration, the administrator has a duty to report on the conduct of all directors in office in the previous three years. The Insolvency Service, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State, looks at all reports in which the administrator suggests that misconduct has occurred, and when it is in the public interest to investigate, it will do so.
If disqualification proceedings are highlighted as being necessary, once the Secretary of State has authorised them, the company director can either give an undertaking or be disqualified. If disqualified, a director can be banned for up to 15 years, depending on the seriousness of the misconduct. Over 100 directors are disqualified each month; the average period of disqualification is around six years, and over 10% of disqualifications are for more than 10 years. That is all a matter of public record, as details are held at Companies House.
Various football directors have been disqualified over the years. For example, in 2011 four directors of Luton Town football club were disqualified for a combined total of 19 years, a significant penalty. They were found to have breached Football Association and FIFA rules and caused the company to trade at risk to, and to the detriment of, HMRC.
Hon. Members raised issues about specific clubs. I am an MP for Cardiff, where the Bluebirds now wear red, and was previously a local councillor in Merton, when Wimbledon football club was having a number of local difficulties about where they were going to play, so I have witnessed at first hand the trauma that club ownership issues can cause to supporters. A number of Members have mentioned their concerns about Coventry City football club. The hon. Member for Coventry South raised the golden share, which I mentioned earlier. My understanding is that the Football League has learned from the case of Coventry City and has strengthened its checks on who holds the golden share in response.
Mr Jim Cunningham
It took a long time to get an answer from the Football League on that question. It was not clear-cut at the beginning; it took a considerable period of time.
Jenny Willott
That may well have been the case. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. On club ownership and the identification of club owners, the football authorities are confident that they can identify club owners. The Football League has responded to the situation at Coventry City to ensure that that picture is not replicated elsewhere.
Jenny Willott
I will not give way, I am afraid, as I have about one minute left. Portsmouth football club is a strong example of a supporter-owned club. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended that the DCMS set up an expert group to consider supporter ownership within the sport. That is now happening, and the experience of Portsmouth FC will be invaluable in shaping considerations on that issue.
This is an extremely emotive issue. Members demonstrated in their contributions how strongly people feel about football. I appreciate that Members will be disappointed that I will not commit today to changing the law in this area. DCMS Ministers have meetings with the football authorities about a variety of issues and have discussed the football creditors rule in the past. However, there has been a significant reduction in insolvencies following the introduction of the financial fair play rules, with no cases this season. We want to encourage responsible spending in football to avoid the pain, both financial and emotional, of insolvency. That is a better way for those working in or supplying a football club, as well as being in the best interests of supporters. If that does not work, the issue will merit further examination, but I hope other hon. Members remain as optimistic as I am about the situation.
Whitchurch Playing Fields
(10 years, 9 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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I wish to raise an issue regarding Whitchurch playing fields—which are, as I will describe, unique—and general issues for the Department for Education in the longer run.
The Whitchurch playing fields are very much a beloved local resource in my constituency, being 25 acres of grass land, enclosed by Abercorn road, Old Church lane, Wemborough road and the aptly named Marsh lane in Stanmore. They are a wide open space, with trails for dog walkers and a pavilion, which has been subject to vandalism, graffiti and severe fire damage over recent years.
The fields are used by 35 local schools for sports purposes, including Whitchurch First school, which is on the site itself. They are also used by youth groups, community organisations, religious groups and football clubs on a regular but, unfortunately, informal basis at present.
Just to give some background, the site was originally called the Carreras sports field and was owned by the Carreras cigarette factory as a place for employees to exercise and for general use. It was subject to a compulsory purchase order by what was then Middlesex county council in 1960, to be used specifically as school playing fields. The usage of the playing fields has a long precedent, and that is why residents and local groups are fighting extremely hard to protect them.
It is important to state up front that the issue is not about maintaining a green space for sentimental reasons; this is not nimbyism—far from it. Campaigners are open to appropriate suggestions about the future of the site, but they are wary of shady deals behind closed doors that prevent local groups, particularly local schools, from using the fields as they have done for decades.
The Conservative administration in Harrow between 2006 and 2010 looked at the possibility of using a group of sports clubs or a consortium to run the playing fields, but dropped the idea, owing to a number of concerns raised by residents. In 2010, Harrow council fell under Labour control and then, after an acrimonious split, independent Labour control. That was when all the trouble began.
The Labour-run council decided to progress a private consortium, known as the Whitchurch consortium, made up of Blake Hall Club, Runwood Homes and Cavendish Rowe, which stepped in with proposals to spend millions on rehabilitating the pavilion and building a sports and leisure complex on the site, which they said could be used by local schools. Everything was promised, including the earth and the kitchen sink. We were to expect improvements to the playing fields’ surface; a new sports pavilion with changing rooms and showers; a café and a bar; as well as numerous football and cricket pitches. The nearest school, Whitchurch First, was duped into offering support for the proposal, lured in by the brand-new sports facilities and a clean-up of the dangerous pavilion structure that adjoins the car park on its part of the site.
However, the Labour-run council completely failed in its duty to look past any of the smoke and mirrors and made some very questionable arrangements. For a start, the lease was given at a peppercorn rent, which, after a long battle was fought under freedom of information laws, turned out to be zero—absolutely nothing. Effectively, Harrow council was giving away those 25 acres of communal land to a private consortium for free.
The original bidding process was short lived and resulted in only two bids, one of which was later withdrawn. Even worse, the lease term for the development was changed to 99 years, with no stipulations given to ensure that the site would be used entirely for sports for the benefit of local schools and people.
The numbers do not add up. There is no way the consortium could use their investment in the site as it currently stands. It can be no coincidence that the head of the consortium is a private property developer. The fields are a large site with immense value for housing. Given the 99-year lease, how long after the sports facilities are built will it be before the site is earmarked for residential or business development to get a return on the investment? Beyond those concerns, residents also fear that the bar would be open all hours of the day and night, and that the sports centre would be used for large-scale events, with consequent traffic and noise.
I wrote to the auditor last year about the conduct of Harrow council in its dealings with the consortium. In its reply, the auditor reminded the council that it had to make
“all decisions about this land on a lawful and proper basis and after taking appropriate advice.”
In particular, the council’s attention was drawn to the advisability of
“carrying out a valuation prior to any disposal of the land, and to the need to ensure their tender processes are fair and transparent.”
The profiles of the people leading the consortium are somewhat questionable. One member, Mr Ramesh Nadarajah, is director of two Lancaster Gate-based firms: Cavendish Rowe and Cavendish Investments. Cavendish Rowe is an estate agent, with specific interest in the W2 London postcode. It describes itself as
“prime central London property specialists dealing in investments, sales and acquisitions”,
and says that it is
“fluent in understanding the value of each specific area. Our unique knowledge of London allows us to make fast decisions and act quickly on opportunities offered to us.”
Another of the groups involved in the consortium is Runwood Homes, a residential care service provider with no link to the Harrow area. The company has courted controversy, with some of its homes failing to meet adequate standards of care for service users while delivering seven-figure dividends to director George Sanders and his family. In 2009, Mr Sanders was involved in a case with Castle Point borough council, regarding his close friendship with a member of the council, Bill Sharp, and subsequent improper influence of planning officers by Councillor Sharp when dealing with an application made in 2007 by Runwood Homes plc, which resulted in Councillor Sharp’s suspension from the council.
The final company in the consortium, Blake Hall Club, is now referred to as Wanstead Sports Club LLP. The club was fined in 2012 for breach of its licence conditions, failing to prevent excessive noise and antisocial behaviour. The local licensing sub-committee in that area was critical of the club in a further report as recently as last year.
I am yet to be made aware of any connection linking that sports club, or any of the developers, with Whitchurch playing fields, let alone the wider Harrow area. That hardly suggests a group of stakeholders with a clear commitment to community ventures in Harrow.
Whitchurch residents discovered only by chance that the playing fields had been signed over to development, without even the slightest attempt at consultation, in 2011. Local residents Melanie and Stephen Lewis put in an application to have the site recognised as a village green, which I supported; even if it failed, it would delay things enough for the proposals by the consortium to receive far greater scrutiny. As it happens, the village green bid was rejected by Harrow council’s licensing committee at the end of last year, leaving the fate of the fields open for debate once again.
The deal that was struck was a bad one for local schools and community groups, which have always used the fields on an as-need basis, and there has yet to be an issue. The consortium proposed to allow only 1,000 hours’ use a year, 9 am to 5 pm weekdays in term time, with no word on whether that would be collectively or per school. The changing rooms would be made available free of charge only to a small number of schools in the local area—Stanburn and Whitchurch—and only community schools, so any academies would not be allowed access. Indeed, if those schools applied to become academies, they would be barred as well. All other local schools would have to pay for use—half price up to 200 hours a year but full price after that. Again, academy status would render them all ineligible for discounts.
Community groups would also be hard done by. Stanmore Baptist church, which adjoins the site, would have to cancel all but one event a year, and Age UK Harrow restricted to a mere 100 hours a year before having to pay its way.
It is true that something has to be done on the site. Some 60,000 square metres of the fields are on a flood plain—hence the name of the road, Marsh lane. The site provides necessary drainage—estimated as equivalent to 28 Olympic swimming pools—and any overdevelopment could damage existing properties in the surrounding area. The pavilion is a material consideration as well, as it will cost money to remove or save. The playing fields need more maintenance than they are currently receiving, so some strategy would be welcome.
I believe that the answer is now in evidence. The Avanti Schools Trust has identified the playing fields as a potential site for the desperately needed Avanti House secondary school. The existing Avanti House school is the only state-funded Hindu school in the country, offering all-through education, with both primary and secondary provision. The primary school, operating under the name Krishna Avanti primary school, is based on Camrose avenue in Edgware, on a site developed by the Conservative administration of the council.
The school, however, has had several difficulties during its formative years. The secondary school has struggled to settle at a permanent site. Having been transferred from the Teachers’ Centre in Harrow, it is now in Stanmore on the site of a former private school, which cannot be expanded any further. The fields are less than two miles from that main school site, so they are perfectly placed for the school’s expansion to accommodate 1,260 students at full capacity. That is a popular solution, which I praise the current Conservative administration for identifying and pursuing. Local residents back the idea as a means to provide more school places locally, which are desperately needed in the area.
If allowed, that alternative development would preserve the use of the fields for school sports for many years to come, not only for the immediate schools, but for all local schools, and it would provide an alternative green space. Currently, the schools have to face an over-strict booking system and the prospect of paying through the nose to use fields that should be free by right.
Other areas have used funding from a private consortium to create sports complexes for use by schools, but this is a unique position. Nowhere else in the country has the sheer number of schools needing to use an open space like this. There is simply no way that a booking system will be able to accommodate them all. It is a fundamental reality that provision for school sports locally would be harmed by the consortium’s proposals, and there is no way around that.
Crucially, when the application for village green status was being considered, papers were discovered that listed the site as school playing fields and therefore protected them from any redevelopment. The Department for Education’s permission is therefore required for any proposal that would have an impact on school sports locally.
I have secured this debate because it is vital that the playing fields are preserved for the use of all the schools that need them. I also believe that the site should be put into the hands of the Avanti Schools Trust, on the condition that the majority of the fields continue to be used, as they are now, for local sports, schools and local communities.
The Minister’s Department has begun a feasibility study into whether the Avanti House secondary school solution is a genuine prospect. If accepted, that would lead to a planning application being submitted soon and a school on the site by 2016. The Avanti Schools Trust is already a strong presence in our area, which has a very significant Hindu community, and it has proved itself trustworthy as a developer and as an excellent provider of quality education.
By contrast, the Whitchurch consortium is now threatening to sue the council if it does not get its way with the site. It claims loss of income and the cost of work carried out, which is ridiculous, given the peppercorn rent that it obtained in the original deal. Frankly, it has no interest whatever in doing what is best for our community. All it wants to do is make a profit, and it will threaten and bully as much as it can to get its end product. Is it any wonder that local residents are concerned?
The Minister was kind enough to attend a meeting with local councillors and campaigners at the end of last year and to elaborate on what would happen with the site. I fully understand that matters related to planning permission, noise pollution and so on do not come into the role of the Department for Education or that of the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel, but there is a duty to ensure that proper consultation takes place before the council can agree to any development on land that has been classified as having school playing fields status. It is very clear that no consultation took place in relation to the consortium’s plans in this case, which should render its application invalid. I call on the Minister to ensure that it is proven that any development would enhance school sports provision locally.
I understand that it is a matter of oversight, and it is not for the Minister to block applications based on local opinion, history, or on other things—even on what I think about the issue. It is about securing the future of the playing fields for their intended purpose. I believe the objections I have raised must cause concern to the Department for Education.
I shall end with a few questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer in his speech. The feasibility study is currently being carried out for the Department and is likely to lead to the use of only a portion of the site by the Avanti Schools Trust. Will the Minister take steps to ensure protection from further attempts by private groups to land grab the rest of it, given the site’s status as school playing fields? Will the Minister confirm that the Department has not received any other applications to change the status of the fields—from school playing fields to private playing fields or for them to be used in any other ways that I described—from private consortiums, developers or any other interested parties?
Will the Minister offer any advice in relation to the issue of the playing fields being on a flood plain? Will the Department or the Avanti Schools Trust bear any responsibility for its drainage, particularly given the educational status and strategic nature of the site?
Finally, if the consortium were to gain control over any part of the playing fields, what protection can be given for use by schools that have opted for academy status? As I have demonstrated, the plans that the consortium currently envisages distinctly disadvantage those schools from using the land. Thank you for your forbearance in listening to me, Mr Streeter, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate on behalf of his constituents, and thank him for the support he has consistently given to the Avanti House free school, which, as he knows, is one of the largest free schools in England. I have carefully noted the comments he has made about the consortium and the concerns that he and many of his constituents have. We discussed those concerns in the meeting we held at the end of last year. The debate provides us with an opportunity to consider the possibility of building a new school on Whitchurch playing fields in this suburban area of Harrow, and to touch on a number of the other associated issues and concerns that he raised during his speech.
I know how concerned my hon. Friend is about the possible development of the site. It was just over three months ago, in December last year, that I met him and a number of his constituents to discuss those concerns. In that meeting, we looked at the possible development by a consortium and what that would mean for other users of the site, especially the local schools. I understand why he is concerned about some of the potential implications.
Today, we are talking about the site being considered for building a new school. Harrow is one of the many local authorities in London and beyond with pressure on school places, as my hon. Friend well knows. The population of the area is growing and we need to meet the potential future shortage of places in both primary and secondary schools. Harrow predicts that in 2021, it will have a shortfall of 700 places for 11-year-olds, so a large expansion programme of school places is already under way in the area. Avanti House will help significantly in meeting that potential deficit in school places, with 180 places created in each academic year within the school.
As my hon. Friend knows, the school only opened in 2012, but it is already extremely popular with local parents. When it reaches capacity in 2018, it will be providing almost 1,700 much needed new places. Indeed, it will most likely be the second largest free school in England at that point. The local authority supports the school, and its sister school, Krishna Avanti, is very popular, too—so much so that it is doubling in size to provide places to meet the local demand. Naturally, parents wish to send their parents to schools with a strong history of providing a good quality education.
Avanti House school is unique in Harrow, as it is the only secondary school with a Hindu ethos. That borough obviously has a large Asian population, and the arrival of a Hindu school will mean increased choice for the residents and reflect the borough’s existing diversity.
As my hon. Friend knows, it has been hugely challenging to find a suitable site large enough to accommodate the entire school. I know that he has been very constructively engaged in trying to find a solution on behalf of his constituents. The problem is faced by a number of new schools, especially those opening in areas such as Harrow and, indeed, right across London. Buildings and land in our capital city are scarce and, in a growing economy, are being sold for increasing sums of money, so they are also expensive to procure.
Avanti House opened in temporary accommodation, spread over two sites, and the secondary phase has already had to relocate once since opening. The search for a site for Avanti House has been a long one. It started in 2011, and many sites both in Harrow and in neighbouring local authority areas have been considered and surveyed. All have so far proven unworkable, for a variety of reasons. We look at a wide range of land and building options for free schools, from office blocks to jobcentres to warehouses, as well as reusing any spare education facilities. A permanent site has now been secured for the primary phase, but a permanent site for the secondary phase has up until now not been secured.
Naturally, and as my hon. Friend knows, we were encouraged when late last year the leader of Harrow council put forward Whitchurch playing fields as a possible option for the Education Funding Agency to consider. I must stress that the project is currently in the feasibility stage. We are carrying out surveys to see whether it is possible and practicable to locate the school on the site. That work will identify any critical issues that may affect development. Obviously, issues such as the floodplain on part of the site will need to be very carefully considered. The review is not due to be completed until next month, and only then can we be sure whether the site is appropriate, so I must emphasise again that the site is currently under consideration. It is not yet secured or confirmed, as my hon. Friend knows. What I can say, as he has said, is that its location is very well placed for the communities that it would serve and for the school’s sister primary school, Krishna Avanti.
It is acknowledged by the local authority and community users that the Whitchurch site is currently not in the best condition. That was made worse by the pavilion burning down a number of years ago and by the loss of changing facilities. It is poorly lit and needs levelling and better drainage, so that it is of a good standard to play on and safe. Not surprisingly, because of that, the playing fields are used at the moment on a much reduced basis, but there are still users. Local schools make regular use of the area and have done so for a number of years, as my hon. Friend has said.
When we met last time, I was able to explain to my hon. Friend that, because the site had been used in that way, the land had a designation as school playing fields, affording it a level of protection from disposal. He will recall that school playing fields are protected from unjustified disposal by section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The consent of the Secretary of State is required for any disposal or change of use of school playing field land. The application to dispose to a consortium would have been considered by the School Playing Fields Advisory Panel. However, the new free school proposal, if it goes forward, would not be considered by the advisory panel, because in effect we would be changing the use of playing field land for educational purposes by placing school buildings on part of it, rather than disposing of it altogether. As I understand it, the current proposal is essentially that the whole site would potentially be put in the hands of the Avanti Schools trust. I can also say to him that, in relation to one of the questions he asked at the end of his speech, we are not currently aware of any other applications being submitted for change of use of the site.
Sites such as Whitchurch playing fields are to be valued, cherished and made the most of. Increasing the use of scarce resources must be a priority. Therefore all school facilities should be community facilities, used out of hours by the wider community, too. This is a very significantly sized site, as my hon. Friend will know better than anyone. It is 10.5 hectares, which is possibly easier to visualise if described as 400 tennis courts or 14 football pitches. That gives plenty of scope for any school site—for the redevelopment of buildings on the site and for the ongoing use of land for sports, both for the school and for other schools in the area.
Should the site prove suitable, discussions will be progressed with the local authority, and consultation with the local community will take place. Thanks to the safeguards that we put in place in the Academies Act 2010, academy trusts must consult on the free school proposal and the Secretary of State must consider the impact that the proposal will have on schools and other institutions. All that is of course without considering the statutory consultation that would be required in relation to planning for such a project.
In relation to one of the other questions asked by my hon. Friend, we are acutely aware that a number of other schools, as he said very clearly, have been using these playing fields for sporting purposes over the years. We would want to ensure that that use continued in the future and that those protections and that availability was there for academy schools as well as the maintained schools in the area.
I am pleased that the desire to set up free schools across the country continues apace and that many more young people will have increased opportunities for high-quality education. However, we are also very aware of the challenge of finding sites for development. That is a challenge right across London and across many key parts of the country where we have basic need pressures. Those difficulties have been particularly evident in Harrow.
I again thank my hon. Friend for his tireless work helping with the site search for Avanti House school, and I congratulate and thank the local authority for its very proactive support in searching for a site. I am also grateful to him for raising the concerns of the other local schools and for making clear how much they value the use of Whitchurch playing fields. If this site does prove viable for Avanti House, that will continue to be the case in the future.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Both protagonists for the next debate are with us. We are a few minutes early, which is fine. We will move on to the next debate.
Bost Project (Afghanistan)
(10 years, 9 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns regarding the Bost agri-park and airfield project. I would not normally seek an Adjournment debate on such an issue, but since January 2013 I have been seeking answers through parliamentary questions on the role of the Department for International Development in this project: how much it cost the taxpayer, what went wrong and what lessons have been learned. I feel as if I have hit a brick wall and have had to prise out any information that I have received from the Secretary of State and her officials. That culminated in a question to the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House on 5 March this year, when she told me that this project was all the fault of the previous Administration and that the biggest waste of money was the £5,000 that she claims it has cost to answer my parliamentary questions. If it really costs in excess of £140 to cut and paste previous answers, perhaps the biggest efficiency saving in DFID might come from the Secretary of State and her Ministers reviewing their approach to answering questions from Members of this House. That is simply not good enough, so today I want to probe whether the public are being kept in the dark over this scheme, and how exactly their money was used. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming than others in the Department have been to date.
In January 2013, I discovered that the project was abandoned after a considerable amount of expenditure from DFID, but that a consultant’s report—the Coffey report—had been prepared on the project in July 2010. I asked whether the report was available, which Minister had received it and which Minister had authorised the project. I was told that it was not available and that it had been received not by the Minister but by an official, because at the time officials had the delegated authority to approve expenditure of up to £40 million. The Secretary of State told me that it had been received by DFID’s senior representative in the Helmand provincial reconstruction team and that a DFID deputy director had authorised the project.
Since the Secretary of State would not let me see the Coffey report, I made a freedom of information request to see a report that had been prepared by the Mott MacDonald consultancy firm. I was told that the information was being withheld because individuals have the right to the protection of their personal information, although I am not sure what personal information there could be in a report that is essentially an impact assessment of the project’s viability. It is not right to disguise the key decision makers from public view. I was also told that the public authority has the right to refuse to disclose information containing unfinished material. However, by the time I submitted the FOI request, DFID had already closed down the project.
I reverted to asking parliamentary questions. I asked whether DFID had considered any independent or external reports on the viability of the project, and if it had, whether they might be placed in the Library. By that time, I was aware of the earlier involvement of USAID, and that there were at least three reports querying the viability of the project. I asked whether there had been discussions with US counterparts on the project prior to DFID’s taking it over, and whether the minutes of those discussions were available. The Secretary of State confirmed that DFID worked closely with USAID on a range of projects, including Bost, but refused to make the details available.
To satisfy myself that aid money had not simply been squandered, on 11 September 2013 I asked how much money in total had been spent on the project and what the original budget was. The reply was that in 2009 a total of £8.42 million had been spent on the project and that the money had come partly through the Helmand growth fund and partly through other budgets for which DFID was responsible. There was no reply about the size of the overall budget, but I was told that in 2010 Ministers reached the conclusion that the programme did not represent value for money for the taxpayer, and it was discontinued. The Secretary of State confirmed that £200,000 had been spent on improving local capacity and training costs, including sending Afghan nationals to training workshops in Dubai.
Another cost was the need for fluent Pashto speakers, and I was naturally curious to know how many were employed and at what cost. In a typically helpful answer, the Secretary of State told me that DFID Afghanistan employs local staff and fluent Pashto speakers on all projects as appropriate. I mention that because the Coffey International consultancy group’s 2010 report for DFID specifically recommended hiring a fluent Pashto speaker to negotiate with locals on the issue of leaseholding, which it saw as a major problem with the main economic proposals in the plan.
Given that I knew that Ministers had closed the project after assessing that it would not provide value for money, I asked which Minister had overall responsibility and therefore presumably had made the decision. The Secretary of State replied that the programme had not been approved by a Minister, but that she had personally decided to pull the plug after her visit to Afghanistan in December 2012—two years after the date on which she previously claimed DFID had ended the project.
I thought it might be helpful to try another FOI request, so I asked to see the economic appraisal of the project produced by the Upper Quartile consultancy firm, dated 2010. I was told that DFID did indeed hold information relevant to my request but that it was being withheld on the grounds that it was unfinished material. That was February 2014—at least two or four years after DFID halted the project, depending on which parliamentary answer one relies on.
Although I could not establish exactly when the project ended, what advice Ministers relied on when they made the decision or how much had been spent, I thought it might be worth while trying to work out how much other agencies had contributed, so I asked who had paid for the road-building programme. Helpful as ever, the Secretary of State told me that it had been funded by both the US and the UK. It has been suggested that several million pounds was spent on roads and access to the park. That appears to have involved laying roads, digging them up and relaying them. A journalist was told by locals that many of the roads had been dug and relaid so many times that they could not accommodate the transport used by the local people and that some of the access areas were too small to allow vehicles on to the site.
It seemed obvious that the Department was being less than helpful. I was not asking about national security, issues affecting the safety of our troops or negotiations with the Taliban, but a project on which a considerable amount of British taxpayers’ money was spent by our aid Department. It appears the project was originally intended to assist local traders and businessmen in the Lashkar Gar region, perhaps to divert them from growing poppies. It was envisaged that they could be encouraged to grow crops and develop other products on a safe site with a reliable source of energy and easy access, and then transport their produce to other parts of Afghanistan from the airfield—hardly earth-shattering stuff. But not enough homework was done and not enough attention was paid to concerns before lots of our taxpayers’ money was spent. Apparently, virtually no work was done to identify potential numbers of interested parties who might lease or buy plots of land on the agri-park, a key feature of the plan. As it turned out, people in the region had little knowledge of the concept of leasehold and were hostile to the idea.
I know from the report prepared by the Coffey consultancy group that DFID was told:
“The Bost Park represents a high risk investment that has a high risk of financial failure.”
When I asked about the return on the investment, I was told that the completion of phase 1 enabled three commercial flights per week to Bost airfield, connecting Helmand to the rest of the country and cutting journey times between Kabul and Helmand from two days to a one-and-a-half-hour flight. Naturally, I wondered whether there was evidence that local businesses were using the flights, but when I asked about that, the Secretary of State replied once more that the project had been approved by an official in 2009 who approved projects of less than £40 million, and that she had discontinued it in 2012. I also found out something new: having ended DFID’s involvement, she had handed the completed park designs over to the Afghan authorities.
I also discovered that the first commercial flight to Bost airfield was actually in June 2009, but that although the Department did not hold any information on businesses using such flights, it could confirm that the airfield was not used for any air freight. The Coffey report stated that the consultants were sceptical that local businesses would use the airfield because of the high cost of air freight and the low return local farmers would receive for produce such as flour and maize.
The Secretary of State’s first answer on finance told me that in 2009 a total of £8.42 million was spent on the project. She said in a subsequent answer that £8.8 million was spent prior to 2010, and in a further answer in November 2013 that £4.56 million had been spent between 2009 and 2013. That seems slightly curious if DFID involvement ended in 2010, or even 2012. It appears that, at the very least, £12.76 million has been spent by faceless bureaucrats on a scheme that did not succeed in stimulating local business, leasing or selling plots of land on the agri-park, or transporting goods via flights from the airfield. The Coffey report suggests that there are many additional costs—including salaries, land acquisition, environmental facilities, waste disposal and training—that are not part of the original estimates.
We know that there are a lot of corrupt officials in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State has shown her irritation at being asked to explain the events I have outlined. We are now on the third Secretary of State since the issue started, and I am extremely irritated that the Secretary of State claims to have wasted £5,000 on bland, repetitive, cut-and-paste, often non-answers that seek to obscure rather than reveal the truth about the project.
I am a supporter of aid, but my constituents and I have a right to know what our money is being spent on. There is a funny smell about the Bost agricultural park and airfield project, and nothing that the Secretary of State has done so far has helped to clear it up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I am glad to attend this debate and discuss DFID’s involvement in the Bost airfield and agricultural business park project.
I will repeat some of the information that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) has already been given and is dissatisfied with, but I hope that the timeline I give him will help to explain why and when decisions were made. He knows that the Bost airfield and agricultural business park project was approved in 2009, under the previous Government, and that Ministers did not authorise the project. At that time, Ministers had delegated authority for routine project spending to officials, up to a maximum value of £40 million. However, approval for the project followed a commitment in March 2009 by the then Secretary of State for International Development to provide £32 million for infrastructure in Helmand over the following four years.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that DFID was present in Helmand as part of the British-led provincial reconstruction team in Lashkar Gah, the joint civilian-military team working to support the local Afghan government to bring governance and development to the province, alongside the security delivered by NATO and Afghan troops. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that a simple military solution is never the answer; there will always be political considerations, and development and jobs are also required.
The Bost airfield and agricultural business park was approved as part of the provincial reconstruction team’s development plan for Helmand. Both major components of the project—the business park and the airfield—were designed to bolster Helmand’s economy by supporting local businesses and providing secure facilities. Helmand is not the easiest environment in which to work, and the situation was extremely fragile when the project was being planned. The provision of secure facilities was designed to allow local businesses to operate and to increase access to markets and commercial opportunities, which in turn would provide much needed jobs and economic growth for the province.
DFID also agreed to improve infrastructure and provide essential facilities at Bost airfield to connect Helmand businesses to the wider Afghan economy. That included building a fire station, a police station and five security towers, to make the airfield secure and fully operational, as well as an access road and car park. DFID officials met with local businesses to discuss the business park in 2009, in advance of the project being approved. That included regular consultation with the Helmand Business Association—now the Helmand National Investors Association—which represents local businesses. The group confirmed local demand for facilities of the kind planned.
DFID’s financial analysis showed that UK funding would result in a positive return for our investment—at that point. DFID therefore agreed to fund the Bost project in partnership with the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency, which agreed to take on a range of commitments, including finding a regular power supplier, land ownership issues—as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—and environmental clearance for the park.
In 2011, following some delays in project implementation by our Afghan partners, DFID’s new financial analysis showed a potential negative rate of return on the agricultural business park. DFID’s team in Afghanistan took action based on that evidence. The project was redesigned, separating the business park and the airfield to ensure that progress on the airfield would not be hampered by the problems and setbacks with the business park. It was also agreed that the business park project would be taken forward in phases, meaning that funding could be withdrawn if it became clear that further investment would not be sustainable.
In 2012, DFID—
Steve McCabe
My question is very simple. The Minister said earlier that she could give a ballpark figure of £32 million for the project. Can she tell us how much has been spent on the various phases, reshuffles and re-designations? How much British taxpayers’ money has been spent overall?
Lynne Featherstone
As I go through, I will set out the sums involved, but the critical point is what sum was not spent because of the non-continuation of the business park, which cost £3.1 million. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the plans were then handed over to the Afghan authorities so that the work would not be wasted and the whole thing could be rescheduled. That was not achievable within the original conception, which is why the plan was cancelled. Rather than waste a further £6 million, the Secretary of State decided to stop the project at that point, hand over the plans and let the project continue at a pace that would be more achievable by the Afghan authorities, without involving the British Government or the British taxpayer in further expense.
In 2012, DFID gave our in-country partners a fixed deadline to deliver the commitments that they had previously agreed in relation to the business park. Towards the end of 2012, it became apparent that our Afghan partners would not meet those commitments; they simply were not forthcoming. It was clear, therefore, that the business park could not be completed within the original time frame and that further UK investment in the work would be poor value for money.
On the £32 million, I want to clarify that it was not £32 million for Bost; £32 million was the total commitment to infrastructure in Helmand. Project approval followed the commitment by the then International Development Secretary.
Towards the end of 2012, as I said, it became apparent that the commitments would not be delivered, the business park would not be completed in time and more UK money would be at risk if we pursued it further. The Secretary of State agreed to cancel further investment in the business park in January 2013, to prevent any further waste of taxpayers’ money. However, the completed park designs were handed over to the Afghan authorities to enable them to pursue the project over a revised time frame. Personally, my view is that that was a sensible way to deal with an unfortunate situation, while saying that the project was still a good idea. However, it had to be deliverable in time and on budget, and that is now up to the Afghan authorities.
On the monitoring of projects, Afghanistan is an inherently risky country, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. Development projects, particularly those in insecure and conflict-ridden areas such as Helmand, will always include an element of risk. He might have got hold of a copy of the report to which he referred—as he quoted from it, I think that my assumption is probably correct. As I understand it, the report was unfinished and high-risk, as one would expect for Helmand. That is acknowledged explicitly in the Government’s building stability overseas strategy, which endorses
“taking risks…in order to secure transformational results”.
As a DFID Minister, I am always saying to DFID officials, “I want to know as much as I can about a risk, but I don’t want you not to suggest taking risks if we are to get transformational results.”
Steve McCabe
I accept that there is an element of risk, certainly for the money, but now that DFID’s involvement in the project has finished, what is the purpose of keeping all the reports hidden from Members of this House? Would it not be better for us to understand the thinking and the decision-making processes? What is the Minister protecting now?
Lynne Featherstone
I am not protecting anything. It is not our practice to publish either unfinished reports or internal reports. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that what is most appropriate is to have checks in place to monitor projects and ensure that they are proceeding as planned. That is what we do with UK taxpayers’ money: we put in milestones so we can check that we are not going off-track. We must ensure that things proceed as planned and take action when that is not the case.
In that respect, the Bost project is a good example of DFID acting on the basis of changing circumstances in Afghanistan. If we saw a project that was beginning to fail, and did not stop it, we would be criticised for not terminating it even though it was not going to provide the return that we expected.
Work continued on the successful upgrades to Bost airfield and was completed in November 2013. There are now two return flights each week from Kabul to Bost, as the hon. Gentleman said, cutting the journey time from two days to one and a half hours.
In recent weeks, the hon. Gentleman has asked a lot of questions. Consequently, I have asked a lot of questions about why he has been asking a lot of questions. As I was responding to this debate, I wanted to understand the basis of the issue. Nothing has been covered up; it was simply that the project was not achievable on the proposed timeline, and the partners involved were not delivering. By separating out the two projects, we ensured that the good part of the project could be finished. He has said that it is a cover-up, but I reject that. There is no cover-up—simply a project, or half a project, that was not going to deliver.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, most of the answers have been set out in departmental responses to his questions. [Interruption.] I am answering one of the questions that he asked. When we responded to his questions in October 2013, a total of £8.42 million had been spent on the Bost airfield and agricultural business park programme, of which, as I said, £3.1 million had been invested in the business park side of the project. The business park was not completed because commitments given by DFID by Afghan partners were not fulfilled. I am sure that he would want us to have Afghan partners. Part of the work that we do on development is growing local business and local capacity.
It was not possible to complete the business park as planned or in a way that would provide value for money for UK taxpayers. As I have said, that part of the programme was cancelled once that became clear. DFID Ministers have taken steps to increase their oversight of programmes approved by the Department—to be frank, we are always doing that. Under the previous Government, Ministers did not approve anything under £40 million. I know, because I now have to go through all the business cases under £40 million with a fine-toothed comb, that Ministers now approve all spending on projects over £5 million.
In conclusion, we have been clear about how much money was spent on the project; how the decision was arrived at; why the decision was made to cancel further funding; the role of Ministers and officials in making those decisions; and what has happened subsequently. That has all been set out in parliamentary answers. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that something remains unrevealed after all that I have said. As far as I am aware, we have been completely open and honest about all our decisions and the money that was spent. I hope that he finds those answers sufficient.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
“Delivering Tax-Free Childcare”
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
The Government have today published “Delivering Tax-Free Childcare: the Government’s response to the consultation on design and operation”—a response to the August 2013 consultation on tax-free childcare. The document is available at: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tax-free-childcare and copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
Tax-free childcare is designed to provide support directly to working parents for their childcare costs. The Government will pay 20p for every 80p working parents pay towards their childcare costs up to a maximum of £10,000 per year.
“Delivering Tax-Free Childcare” announces that all working families with children under 12 will be able to access the scheme within the first year of its opening, as opposed to a gradual expansion over a seven-year period.
“Delivering Tax-Free Childcare” also announces an increase in the cost cap from £6,000 a year to £10,000 per year, which will mean the Government contribution could be worth up to £2,000 per child each year. This means that around 100,000 parents with higher childcare costs can benefit from greater support.
Delivered by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) with its delivery partner National Savings & Investments (NS&I), the scheme will be will be simple, flexible and straightforward for parents and childcare providers; parents’ money will be secure; and they will face no fees or charges.
Employers’ workplace nurseries will not be affected by the introduction of TFC and parents who currently receive employer-supported childcare (ESC) can continue to benefit from this scheme with their current employer should they wish to do so. Self-employed parents and those working for employers who do not offer the existing scheme, employer-supported childcare (ESC), will have access to childcare support for the first time.
The Government announced at Budget 2013 that they are allocating a further £200 million per year to increase the childcare support available under universal credit for families where both parents, or a single parent, pay income tax. The Government are now going further and today announce they will raise the proportion to 85% for everyone in universal credit. In line with the principles of the welfare cap, offsetting savings to fund this expansion will be found from within the universal credit programme. Further details will be set out at autumn statement.
ECOFIN
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Brussels on 11 March 2014. The following agenda items were discussed.
Follow-up to the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Governors (Sydney, Australia, 22-23 February 2014)
Council was informed of the main outcomes of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors’ meeting in Sydney. The Government are supportive of the Australian G20 agenda, particularly the focus on strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
Preparation of the European Council on 20-21 March 2014—Economic Elements of the EU 2030 Energy and Climate Framework
Council held an exchange of views on economic elements of the EU 2030 energy and climate framework, in order to input to the March European Council. The Government expressed support for the emerging conclusions on the EU 2030 framework and reiterated the importance of member states retaining the flexibility to pursue the most cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy.
Savings Taxation
Council discussed a proposal on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments. Austria and Luxembourg could not support the proposal and the presidency concluded that it will need to return to a future Council. The Government support an agreement of the amending proposal to the EU savings directive as soon as possible.
Current legislative proposals
The presidency provided an update on the ongoing work on financial services dossiers.
Single Resolution Mechanism
The Council examined the state of play of the single resolution mechanism in relation to the trilogue process with the European Parliament. The Government welcome the progress made on this file since the general approach was reached at ECOFIN in December 2013, and will be ensuring that they fully respect the unity and integrity of the single market.
Sri Lanka: UN Human Rights Council (Correction)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
Due to an error in the written ministerial statement issued on 13 March 2014, Official Report, column 40WS, I am issuing a corrected statement.
During the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Sri Lanka last year, the Prime Minister called on the Sri Lankan Government to launch a credible domestic process to ensure accountability for alleged violations and abuses of international humanitarian and human rights law on both sides during the conflict. The Prime Minister said that if the Sri Lankan Government did not take this step, we would use our position on the UN Human Rights Council to seek an international investigation.
In the intervening months, we have pressed the Sri Lankan Government to set up a domestic process to investigate these allegations and ensure accountability. However, no credible domestic accountability processes have been set up to date in Sri Lanka. As a result, the time has now come for international action on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.
The UK is therefore working in support of a strong resolution which calls for an international investigation, which will be voted on by the end of this month at the UN Human Rights Council.
A draft resolution was jointly tabled at the UN HRC by the UK, US, Mauritius, Macedonia and Montenegro, on Monday 3 March. The draft resolution calls for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to lead the international investigation, and to report back by March 2015. Further discussions on the text will take place this month.
The adoption of the resolution is not a foregone conclusion. Ahead of the vote, the Prime Minister and I, and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, have been in contact with a wide range of UN HRC member states to encourage them to support a strong resolution that calls for an international investigation. In doing so, we have drawn attention to the assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who points to the need for this investigation, as progress on accountability in Sri Lanka has been, in her words, “limited and piecemeal”. The Commissioner has also highlighted concerns on other human rights issues, including the undermining of independent institutions such as the judiciary in Sri Lanka, a “significant” surge in attacks on religious minorities and impunity for those committing serious human rights abuses. In the remaining days before the vote we will continue to urge UN HRC members to support this action, and maintain our close contact with NGOs and civil society.
We welcome the offer of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist in an international investigation, which would be a significant step forward in ensuring that the Sri Lankan people will know the truth behind events during the conflict. We are confident that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, together with special procedures, can provide a full and comprehensive investigation.
It is important to recognise that, as a country and a people, Sri Lanka has enormous potential, with the opportunity to become a strong and prosperous nation, if the Sri Lankan Government address these vital issues. The UK has previously welcomed progress in Sri Lanka in areas including demining (on which the Prime Minister last year announced a further £2.1 million of UK funding), reconstruction of former conflict affected areas and the reintegration of child soldiers. Such progress should not be overlooked.
But it is also important that this progress is matched by substantive progress on reconciliation, human rights and accountability. It is clear that Sri Lanka still has a long way to go in this respect, in order to achieve lasting peace and reconciliation. Accountability plays an important part in the reconciliation process, and must not be ignored. This is intended to be a resolution which will help to address the legitimate concerns of all communities.
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 10 March 2014 in Brussels. Shan Morgan, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the United Kingdom.
The “A” points were adopted, with the UK voting against the proposal for a regulation on the fund for the European aid to the most deprived. Both Houses submitted “reasoned opinions” that the Commission’s proposal did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The Government agreed with these concerns. The regulation creates an EU scheme to finance the distribution of food and consumer goods to deprived people. These activities are better and more efficiently delivered by individual member states and their local authorities, rather than through EU programmes. The fund will be financed in each member state by diverting resources from the member state’s structural funds programmes which support local growth and help disadvantaged people into work.
The Council reached an agreement in principle on the tripartite social summit for growth and employment. The Commission welcomed the consensus that had been reached by member states on this proposal and understands that due to the use of article 352, which triggered changes in national legislation in the UK, Germany and the Czech Republic, the decision would not be able to be adopted under the Greek presidency. The UK stated that we had no concerns with the substance of the decision but that we could not give formal agreement until the decision had been agreed in our national Parliaments.
The Council adopted the recommendation on a quality framework for traineeships with minimal discussion. The UK outlined its principled objection to this initiative, which was too prescriptive, would impose unnecessary burdens on both Governments and employees, and risked resulting in fewer traineeships being offered. The UK stressed it was committed to tackling the issue of youth unemployment and had put in place a range of measures to that effect, however any additional EU initiatives should focus more on outcomes and results, rather than prescribing a rigid framework that failed to take sufficient account of national priorities.
There were two policy debates on the 2014 European semester and on the recent Commission communication taking stock of the Europe 2020 strategy published on 5 March 2014. The outcome of both discussions will provide EPSCO’s contributions to the March European Council. The UK stressed that structural reforms to create jobs and enable people to move into work were essential. As such, the Europe 2020 targets should continue to focus strongly on employment and the employment guidelines should highlight the importance of labour market participation for all groups, not just young people.
Ministers adopted Council conclusions on the annual growth survey (AGS) and the social situation in the EU; the draft joint employment report (JER); and agreed a general approach on the Council decision on the employment guidelines.
Under any other business the Commission presented the main findings of its implementation reports on the gender recast directive 2006/54 and two anti-discrimination directives (2000/43 and 2000/78) which were published last year. The presidency updated the Council on its progress on legislative files and the upcoming tripartite social summit, and the work programmes for the Employment Committee (EMCO) and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) were presented by the Committee Chairs.
House of Lords
Finance: Interest Rates
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barnett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whom they consider ultimately responsible for United Kingdom interest rates.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the UK’s monetary policy framework, set out in the Bank of England Act 1998, gives operational responsibility for monetary policy to the independent Monetary Policy Committee. Decisions on setting the bank rate and the remuneration rate on reserves are for the judgment of the MPC. It uses its macroeconomic tools to aim to meet the inflation target of 2% in the medium term.
Lord Barnett (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord did not quite answer my Question, about where the ultimate power rests. The Bank of England Act, which he cited, is worth quoting. Section 19(2), on reserve powers—as he knows, the Treasury never gives away old powers without some reserves—says:
“An order under this section may include such consequential modifications of the provisions of this Part relating to the Monetary Policy Committee as the Treasury think fit”.
In those circumstances, surely the noble Lord must accept that the real power rests with the Chancellor, who has power as he thinks fit. Will he be so kind as to tell us, first, why he normally never answers the question properly and, secondly, whether he now accepts that the Chancellor has the ultimate power, as my Question asked?
Lord Newby
My Lords, interest rates are set by the Monetary Policy Committee. The noble Lord quoted rather selectively from the Act. If he had read Section 19(1) instead of Section 19(2), he would have found that the Treasury’s powers to which he referred are applicable only if they are,
“required in the public interest and by extreme economic circumstances”.
In the absence of “extreme economic circumstances”, the Treasury has no reserve powers.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, whoever is in charge, is it not time we had a monetary policy system that paid due regard to the rate of exchange? A trading nation cannot ignore the rate at which it exchanges its goods. Is it not time our policy embraced the effect of interest rates on the rate of exchange as well as on inflation?
Lord Newby
No, my Lords, I do not think it is. You cannot control both. One of the interesting things about the large depreciation in the pound is that it did not have the impact on the balance of payments that people expected. The rate of exchange is only one of many variables that determine how competitive and successful exports are. All the evidence is that it is not quite as important a determinant as used to be thought.
Lord Peston (Lab)
My Lords, as background to this Question, we should remember that when we were debating the 1998 Act the Minister went to great lengths to emphasise that the activities of the Monetary Policy Committee would be scrutinised not only by other place but also by this House. Certainly, when I was chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee—a committee I invented, as the Minister is well aware—we used to see the Governor of the Bank of England regularly. All that is background to a very simple question: when was the last time that the Governor of the Bank of England went to the Economic Affairs Committee and was scrutinised by it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not read the papers of the Economic Affairs Committee as assiduously as I should, and I cannot quite remember. My recollection from reading them from time to time is that the governor still goes, although not as frequently as when the noble Lord set up the committee. The committee was established specifically to review the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee; it was not an Economic Affairs Committee—I had the honour of sitting on it with the noble Lord. Although the governor does not come to the committee as frequently as he used to, he still does come—but I shall write to the noble Lord to tell him when the last time was.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the powers of the Monetary Policy Committee are even greater than are often thought? Does he further agree that the best example of this—if he were to read the minutes of the last meeting which have been published—is that the governor’s wish to include reference to the output gap in forward guidance was overruled by the Monetary Policy Committee, thereby indicating its power?
Lord Newby
My Lords, one slightly surprising thing about the way in which the MPC has worked is the independence of its members vis-à-vis the governor. When it was established, I think that there was a view that it would be a poodle of the governor, because a significant number of members are other employees of the Bank of England. That has not proved to be the case, and governors have, if not regularly, then on a number of occasions been overruled by the rest of the committee over the years.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I have two questions, the second being short. First, the Government used to say that low interest rates were a sign of the success of their policies. Now that rates are beginning to edge up somewhat, they are saying that it is a further sign of the success of their policies. How does the Minister resolve this contradiction? Could he answer a second question: how many women are on the Monetary Policy Committee?
Lord Newby
On the latter question, I am sure that the noble Lord will join me in congratulating the woman who today has been the MPC’s latest appointment as deputy governor. On the first question, the success of the system was that it enabled the Monetary Policy Committee to “look through”—to use the technical phrase—a temporary peak in inflation, when it went up to 5% because of external factors, and keep interest rates low, which helped the recovery. I think that most people would agree that interest rates are at an unusually and historically low level and that, as the economy recovers, we would expect interest rates slowly to rise, although, as the governor said in the recent forward guidance, it is expected that any increase in interest rates will be very gradual and that the new equilibrium is unlikely to be as high as it was in the past.
North Korea
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the United Nations commission of inquiry into human rights in North Korea.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, the commission of inquiry documented appalling reports of state-sanctioned human rights violations. While this is no surprise to those familiar with the DPRK, the full report, including the finding that there are reasonable grounds to establish that crimes against humanity have been committed, is a powerful indictment of the regime. The UK is working to ensure a strong UN Human Rights Council resolution that makes clear that there can be no impunity for human rights violations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the strong statement made by Her Majesty’s Government yesterday in Geneva in response to the launch of the commission of inquiry report. What steps will now be taken, notwithstanding threats of the use of veto, to bring North Korea’s egregious and systematic violations of human rights to the UN Security Council and to seek a referral to the International Criminal Court or another appropriate tribunal? What other measures are we looking at to target those responsible for what the commission says are crimes against humanity without parallel—sui generis—anywhere in the world?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I had an opportunity to read the report in some detail and it documents the most appalling human rights record—some of it taken from witness testimony. Of course, the noble Lord was involved when the commission visited the United Kingdom to take some of that testimony and speak to parliamentarians. There will be a report at the end of this month, on 28 or 29 March, at the Human Rights Council. We are trying to ensure that the resolution is as strong as possible and a practical one that will have a real impact on the ground, therefore focusing on things like the renewal of the special rapporteur’s mandate and the creation of a testimony collection mechanism. UN Security Council referral is an option, but it must be clear that there is some prospect of success there. Of course, noble Lords will be aware of the challenges of referral to the ICC when North Korea is not a state party.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it is hard to conceive of a more terrible story than the one that the UN commission tells. I want to ask two practical questions: what is the force of sanctions against North Korea on goods made by forced labour, and what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to stop such goods coming into the United Kingdom?
Baroness Warsi
There is very little trade between the United Kingdom and North Korea in any event and the sanctions are predominantly focused on the situation in relation to the nuclear programme. There has been some recent concern in relation to what could loosely be described as “blood minerals”, given reports of the use of slave labour in mining. We are open to evidence of that. The noble Lord will be aware that this must be an agreed sanctions regime. We always keep the matter under review.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, can the Minister confirm recent reports of the possible execution of 33 people for allegedly plotting to overthrow the regime by their association with the South Korean missionary, Kim Jung-wook? What efforts are being made to urge the North Korean authorities not to proceed with such executions and to respect freedom of religion?
Baroness Warsi
We are aware of these terrible reports. Of course, this relates to the suspicion that these individuals were involved with the creation of an underground church under the support of Kim Jung-wook, a South Korean who was arrested by the DPRK last year. As noble Lords are aware, freedom of religion and belief is a key priority for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and we make those views clear to the North Koreans. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will accept that we have only so many mechanisms with which to make our opinions known on this matter.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, what conversations beyond the Human Rights Council have the Government had with the Government of China? We hear reports of China’s concerns about the ability of North Korea to destabilise the region entirely. It would be helpful if my noble friend told the House about bilateral conversations with China.
Baroness Warsi
China is an important partner in these discussions. At the UK-China strategic dialogue in February, the Foreign Secretary raised the commission of inquiry report and issues including the forced repatriation of refugees with State Councillor Yang Jiechi. Of course, the Prime Minister in his meeting raised that issue as well. We have discussed the commission’s report with senior Chinese officials in Beijing.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, those who manage to flee North Korea of course mainly end up in the neighbouring countries of South Korea and China. Outside those countries, the UK, with its long history of providing refuge, has the largest concentration of refugees from North Korea. What engagement do Her Majesty's Government have with those refugees? Not only are they a source of information about the regime, but due to the education and so on that they receive here they are important contributors to change and many wish to return to North Korea, should the regime change.
Baroness Warsi
FCO officials regularly engage with refugees from North Korea. Indeed, those refugees played an important role, when the commission of inquiry was held in the United Kingdom, in providing first-hand testimony and evidence of human rights abuses. We also engage with refugees from North Korea who are settled in South Korea as part of the English for the Future programme. A number of language training sessions, internships and Chevening scholarships are provided, which are another helpful integration mechanism for North Koreans into South Korea.
Baroness Cox (CB)
Did the noble Baroness notice in yesterday’s report references to the information blockade and news blackout which engulf North Korea? Given our obligations under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to promote the free flow of news and information, will she or the Foreign Secretary host a round-table discussion with the BBC World Service, the All-Party Group on North Korea and others who wish to respond to the serious concerns expressed in the report regarding the information blockade?
Baroness Warsi
This question comes up on a number of occasions in relation to North Korea; indeed, it was a question that I answered only last week in relation to the BBC’s role and editorial independence in commissioning services. Article 19 has to be interpreted in the light of Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The covenant gives the UK an obligation in relation to UK nationals, so our obligation is to our nationals, not to North Korean nationals. The BBC question is under review, but it is a question for the BBC.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is a strong read across between what the West does over the Ukraine and the leverage it carries in North Korea?
Baroness Warsi
Noble Lords will have a five-hour debate on the issue of Ukraine starting very shortly, so we will be exploring that issue in some detail. It comes back to the international community’s responsibility and its clear stance on the issue of human rights.
Aviation: Fume Events
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Countess of Mar
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how air crew and passengers in commercial airlines without filtration or detection systems are warned, protected and informed in the event of a fume incident from contaminated bleed air.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as patron of the GCAQE.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, operators are required to include detailed instructions to crew on procedures to be followed when contamination of cabin air is present or suspected. Any passenger who became unwell would be given first aid by the crew and, if necessary, referred for further medical assessment and care after landing. There is no national or international legislation requiring air crew or passengers to be informed of fume events.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, it is almost 60 years since the danger of fumes seeping into cabin air was first reported. With the notable exception of the Boeing 787, virtually all passenger jets still have flawed and potentially dangerous bleed air systems, a design that leaks pyrolised oil into the air supply. Does the Minister agree that most shocking of all is the fact that airlines fail to inform passengers that they have been exposed, which—and I have chosen my words very carefully—must be a breach of passengers’ rights and casts a dark reflection on the aviation industry? What solutions does the Minister have?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, on most commercial aircraft the cabin air supply is provided by engine bleed air, which is drawn from the compressor stage of the engine. Contamination, known as a fume event, may occur when oil or hydraulic fluid is released into the bleed air—for example, as a result of an oil seal failure—resulting in the formation of a fleeting odour or mist in the aircraft cabin. Most fume events last less than a minute or two.
Many investigations have been carried out by the department, of which the noble Countess will be well aware. The committee on toxicity concluded that there was no evidence for pollutants occurring in cabin at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines and, as most levels observed were comparable to those typically experienced in domestic settings, there is appropriately no requirement for passengers to be informed. There are many steps to be taken if there is an assessment that there is any endangerment to any passengers or to the flight.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the work undertaken by the all-party parliamentary organophosphate group, of which the noble Countess and I were both members? Can she in particular tell us whether there is continuous monitoring of incidents and potential risks, following the Cranfield study some years ago? It is my impression that there is no continuing monitoring—I do not think that there has been any recent report on this—of incidence in a global sense, even if there is one for UK operators.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, for six years the department carried out significant research into these issues, and quite appropriately so. That research led to four studies, the main one of which was the Cranfield study published in May 2011. All four reports were sent to the committee on toxicity, which also peer-reviewed other international data and came to the conclusion that I just discussed: that cabin air at levels exceeding available health and safety standards and guidelines was not evident in any of those studies. Going forward, I think it therefore becomes an international issue and it is a matter for the European Aviation Safety Agency or the International Civil Aviation Organisation to consider whether more research should be done. At this point, I am not aware of any concerns that they have for ongoing monitoring or further research.
Lord Wigley (PC)
But does the Minister not accept that there is genuine concern about the lack of information about concentrations of pollutants during major fume events? These have not been adequately collated or analysed and, given the Government’s responsibility in these matters, can she instigate some research that could try to get to the bottom of this?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the studies which were carried out over a period of nearly six years—the investigations by the department, including the four independent research studies that I described a few moments ago—and the work of the committee on toxicity have led the department to conclude that there is no further direction to pursue in terms of research on this issue for UK aviation. If there is to be further research, it will be at international levels. As I say, there is no indication of a sufficient concern or basis for research being recognised by those international organisations.
Lord Elton (Con)
Could my noble friend complete her answer to my noble friend Lord Tyler by telling us whether there is a requirement on airlines to report incidences when there has been a fume event exceeding the parameters which she has already described?
Baroness Kramer
Incidents on aircraft flights, including any fume event which in the opinion of the airline, any member thereof or any passenger,
“endangers or which, if not corrected, would endanger an aircraft, its occupants or any other person”,
are required to be reported under the mandatory occurrence reporting scheme, known as MORS, which is run by the UK’s independent aviation regulator, the CAA. An investigation carried out by the operator would then typically follow. If the CAA was not satisfied with that investigation, it could ask for further work to be undertaken. It is a CAA responsibility to monitor for trends and unrecognised safety threats.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Minister as I have on occasions from that Dispatch Box also produced responses that did not satisfy the noble Countess, Lady Mar, nor many other Members of the House. I therefore ask the Minister this question. If she is able to give the degree of reassurance that she has given about the monitoring that we carry out, but if the issue is a great deal wider than that—she made no reference at all to how other countries attack this or to the European position in general—will the Government at least push the authorities into examining this matter further? The consequences of getting it wrong would be quite disastrous.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Lord will be very well aware that the CAA, which is responsible for monitoring and safety, keeps not just this issue but many others under review. I feel confident that if the CAA had sufficient concern that it felt that there needed to be urgent research, it would inform the department of that and would be pushing on those issues. As I said, there has been very substantial research in this country and in other countries which has led to firm conclusions. Given that, it is hard to see what direction additional research could possibly go in.
Mental Health: Funding
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the provision of mental health beds and funding, in the light of their commitment to parity of esteem between physical and mental health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we are clear that acute beds must always be available for people who need them. Providers have a responsibility to listen to patients and to offer care in the community as well as in hospitals, when appropriate. The mandate to NHS England sets its specific objectives, including on mental health. It is for NHS England and clinical commissioning groups locally to determine how best to allocate funding in commissioning services to meet local need.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Before these cuts come in April the reality is that it is already very difficult to find an urgent mental health bed. Ten days ago in Kent, no emergency level 4 mental health beds were available. Given that the cuts in mental health services are 20% more than for hospital trusts and given David Nicholson’s statement last week that NHS England will not review them, what specifically can the Government do to remedy the situation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, my honourable friend Norman Lamb has expressed his concern that the cuts to the mental health tariff have taken the form that they have. I can tell my noble friend that the department will be scrutinising the commissioning plans of clinical commissioning groups and the draft budgets of mental health trusts to make sure that they reflect the central importance, as set out in the Government’s mandate to the NHS, of making measurable progress towards parity of esteem. We know that there are regional differences in access and we are setting up a new national mental health intelligence network to provide comprehensive and up-to-date information about mental health and well-being.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, despite having very clear guidance and legislation in place, we still have an unacceptable number of 16 and 17 year-olds being admitted to psychiatric wards and that, worryingly, many children under the age of 16 are being placed on adult wards many miles from their families and homes? I am sure the Minister will agree that this is totally unacceptable and extremely harmful to the children concerned and their families. What plans do the Government have to put a complete stop to this harmful practice and provide the resources that are clearly needed for appropriate places for young children in mental health services? Does he have an approximation of the number of children we are talking about?
Earl Howe
I do not have a figure to quote to the noble Lord, but our aim, as he says, must be to support children and young people with mental health problems wherever possible in the community in which they live. Admission to hospital should be a last resort for a young person. We have done a great deal to improve mental health services for young people in the community. We also recognise the difficulties for young people and their families if they are treated in hospitals some way from home, but the decision about where they are treated is bound to depend on what is available and what facilities are needed to meet their particular clinical needs.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, given that there should be parity of esteem not only between mental and physical health services but between people in the community and those in prison, and given that up to 70% of women in our prisons are mentally ill, what provision is now given under the Health and Social Care Act regime for the commissioning of those services for these women?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the principle of parity of esteem applies in every clinical setting, including prisons. We have made it very clear in our document Closing the Gap that these matters are not only important in the wider community but also in prison. We will be monitoring the situation very closely, not least in women’s prisons.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that successive Governments have shown a remarkable lack of kindness in giving information concerning the apportionment of funds between physical and mental health matters? Does he accept that what is asked for is not a detailed breakdown under various headings, but a broad, ballpark figure that will allow the public to judge whether or not mental health has been less than equitably dealt with in this situation? The failure to give this information, which clearly must be shared by all departmental Ministers, will only add to that suspicion.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government are committed to the principle of transparency in these areas. I can tell the noble Lord that last month NHS England published expenditure data from its programme budgeting data set for 2012-13 which show that expenditure on mental health in that year was £11.28 billion.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl cannot escape his own responsibility and that of his ministerial colleagues. He sets the mandate for NHS England. NHS England has specified that for the next financial year mental health trusts are to be discriminated against as compared to acute trusts. Ministers cannot evade their responsibilities. Why do they not intervene?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we have intervened. I have already referred to the action my honourable friend Norman Lamb has taken, making it very clear that not only would there be ministerial oversight of clinical commissioning group plans but that we would ensure that every decision made by a clinical commissioning group with regard to its mental health patients could be justified.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s repetition of the parity issue but, in practice, many young people nowadays—one in four, perhaps, as has come out in recent surveys—are suffering from mental health problems. I have evidence, which I would be glad to give to the Minister for his intelligence network, that there is no parity when it comes to young people. For example, one GP said that it is a “DIY service”. There are major concerns about mental health across all ages, particularly young people. I would welcome a response from the Minister now but I would also like to give him some evidence to be looked into with regard to specific areas in this country.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3 and 12 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.
Defence Reform Bill
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 10, Schedule 3, Clauses 11 to 13, Schedule 4, Clauses 14 to 38, Schedule 5, Clauses 39 to 45, Schedule 6, Clause 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 51.
Deep Sea Mining Bill
Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Payment of Horserace Betting Levy by holders of remote operating licences
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision so as to secure that the bookmakers by whom the levy under section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 is payable include bookmakers who are required to hold a remote operating licence (within the meaning given by the Gambling Act 2005).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may—
(a) confer a discretion on any person;(b) include provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any provision made by or under an enactment;(c) make different provision for different purposes;(d) include incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provision.(3) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Nothing in this section is to be read as preventing—
(a) the bringing into force of Part 2 of the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Act 2004, or(b) the exercise of any power under that Part.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the helpful and constructive discussions that have taken place on the horserace betting levy. As I said on Report, these discussions have been very valuable and have helped to take us to where we stand today.
This amendment provides the Secretary of State with reserve powers to make regulations to secure extension of the liability to pay the horserace betting levy under Section 27 of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 to all bookmakers who are required to hold a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission under the Gambling Act 2005. That will include bookmakers who are based outside Great Britain and who will be required to obtain a remote gambling licence as a result of the Bill.
This amendment is fully in keeping with the context and purpose of this remote gambling Bill, which is about levelling the playing field for bookmakers engaging with British punters. Subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new clause are broadly drafted to ensure that the Secretary of State has power to make all the changes that may be necessary to secure extension of the levy to offshore bookmakers. This clause ensures, for example, that the Secretary of State has the power to make changes to the levy scheme that may be necessary to secure extension compatible with the UK’s obligations under EU law.
Subsection (3) is essentially the same as the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Astor on Report. Secondary legislation brought forward under this amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure in both Houses of Parliament. Subsection (4) expressly makes clear that existing provisions to abolish the levy once a suitable replacement has been found are unaffected by this amendment. The Government believe that any statutory levy should be fairly applied, but that does not mean that we are abandoning the search for a replacement that more appropriately reflects the modern betting and racing industries. The Government now intend to move forward quickly on two concurrent projects.
First, on extending the levy, we will seek to complete the necessary work in time for negotiations on the 55th levy scheme in 2015 to take place on the basis of extension. I must add that this timing will, of course, be subject to the outcomes of discussions with the European Commission that will begin this Friday. The timing will also be subject to the outcome of a consultation on the mechanics of implementing levy extension which will begin shortly. At the same time, we will develop wider levy reform options and consult on those later this year. This amendment is about collecting the horserace betting levy in a fair and consistent way. It is a reasonable amendment which I believe commands widespread support. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forth this amendment instead of the amendment that I moved on Report; this amendment in lieu is better drafted than mine. I am very grateful for the support that both he and the Minister for Sport in another place, Helen Grant, have given on this issue. The amendment has been widely welcomed by the racing industry and by the majority of the betting industry. Of course, the hard work of looking forward to a replacement of the levy now begins, which will require a great deal of movement from all those parties involved in racing to come to a conclusion that will work and is a commercial agreement. In the mean time, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I am aware that the House is keen to get on to the important debate that we will hold on the Ukraine this afternoon, so I will not detain it longer than I have to.
I start from a position that may not be widely shared in this House—I do not know—which is that I am against the levy, and I have been for years. When I started off being against it I was in a minority of one, but now a large number of people have come round to the view that it is not desirable. The two Members of the House of Commons who have most knowledge of these matters—Mr Philip Davies and Mr Laurence Robertson, who chairs the Racing and Bloodstock Industries All-Party Group—are both anti-levy. On their good days the Government are anti-levy, since they have explained that they want a replacement of the levy. I hope that it will be a commercial replacement that comes along.
I am against the levy for two reasons. First, for my sins I am by training an economist and, like all economists, I believe that subsidies, ceteris paribus, are a bad thing. They distort markets and interfere with the generally beneficial results in industry of free competition. The statutory levy on horseracing betting is an exemplar of this; it means that racing spends much of its time lobbying for more levy instead of putting its house in order and modernising the sport. It leads to bigger prizes, which in turn lead to inflated prices for the best bloodstock and then demands for even bigger prizes, so that that investment in inflated-priced bloodstock pays a dividend. Supernormal profits are made by some participants in the sport, including successful trainers, but I observe that little of that money trickles down to stablehands.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, having spoken at all stages of this Bill in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Astor, I add my thanks to those he gave to the Minister. I certainly wish him and his colleagues well in their discussions with the European Commission. I very much hope that he will avoid the dire consequences predicted by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, or, indeed, those whom he cites.
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister, with one exception, for his courtesy and the care that he took over the Bill throughout its proceedings. He gave many assurances, which I am sure we will all follow up in due course. I only hope that his discussions with the casinos are proceeding apace and that that anomaly will be ironed out in due course. Given good will on all sides—I know that the Minister has that good will—I am sure that we will find a suitable solution. It may not be the optimum one but it will be a solution.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, I, too, rise briefly to add my support to this amendment and to pay great tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and, indeed, to his noble friend the Minister. I must declare an interest in having a son who trains horses and I have an interest in his yard at Newmarket. I congratulate the Government on taking this on board so very seriously.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I rise merely to register a sadness in that, in moving Amendment 1, the Minister is abandoning his long-standing opposition to any amendment to the Bill. I am concerned that the one amendment to which he has agreed provides regulation-making powers that will help the industry, but he has not introduced a balancing amendment to help with consumer protection and to help the vulnerable.
I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said at a meeting with Sky Bet and me that the Government were at least considering backing up their voluntary approach to FTB with regulations, and I am disappointed that the opportunity to insert them in the Bill has now been lost. I very much hope that the Government will put this right in the consumer protection Bill because consumer protection is also very important.
Lord Wade of Chorlton (Con)
My Lords, other Members may remember a similar discussion in this House in the early 1990s when the Duke of Devonshire said in terms—I cannot remember exactly what he said—that in his view any well brought up young man should have a mistress, a yacht and a racehorse; and that, if he could not afford any one of them, he jolly well should not have them. I am inclined to agree with him.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure how I can follow that remark but I shall try my best.
I should like to add my thanks to the Minister for taking on board the principles contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to which I added my name. There is, I think, true cross-party support for this amendment and this move. There may not necessarily be support for it on my own side but that is another matter.
However, this change will undoubtedly lead to a healthier sport, more investment, growth and jobs. Where I certainly share the opinions of my noble friend Lord Lipsey, is my belief that any such extension should lead to the extension of work that the levy supports on training, education and employment. I, too, welcome the Minister’s commitment that the two work streams of levy extension and wider levy reform will run concurrently. I do so because neither process can be used as an excuse to hold up the other—again I share the views of my noble friend. It is really good that the Bill team have given that commitment. I share the view that has been expressed that there is a need for a more modern and commercial framework for the levy. I know that that is supported not only by the racing industry but by everyone who works in it. That is where I should like to add my voice.
Action has long been required. I congratulate the Minister and the Bill team, who have done excellent work on the Bill, on not allowing the opportunity for primary legislation to pass without this action. However, I want to make one point, which reflects my noble friend’s point, too. The Minister should begin consultation on levy reform options as soon as possible, and on this side we would also like this to include the option for a horseracing right.
Baroness Trumpington (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Bill is finally going through. I have one question. Does the Minister agree that without the Maktoum family, we would have absolutely no media coverage of racing? I, for one, would very much regret that. We should somehow show our gratitude to those who make it possible for a much wider public to enjoy racing. I congratulate again those who have produced the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank your Lordships once again for the fascinating contributions to this short debate. We have gone into some interesting country already, and I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Astor, who has assisted so much in reaching a reasonable and fair result. I am mindful of what my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said. I am sorry that I was unable to satisfy him on all points, but we have endeavoured at every turn in this honest adventure to get things as right as possible. I certainly know that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has a strong interest in racing. I am not sure what more could be said about my noble friend Lord Wade’s contribution, other than it was powerful.
I also wanted to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that we have had some very good discussions. I should like to reassure her and I will say so in the next group. Those discussions have been constructive, and the reason the Government feel that this provision is a natural extension to the Bill is that it is in a natural sequence of what is intended in the Bill as regards remote gambling.
My noble friend Lady Trumpington is a great champion of racing, and I endorse what she said because I do not see racing, or indeed life, as being about divisions of people. Whether one is a stable lad or a racehorse owner, we all enjoy the racing and we love the horses. That is what I see as the unity in the racing crowd and the people involved. I know many of them from all parts of the country and racing is a very important part of our economy.
Lord Browne of Belmont
“(5A) An order under subsection (5) relating to the commencement of section 2 may not be made until the Secretary of State has reported to Parliament on the outcome of any reviews into advertising of gambling in Britain that they have commissioned in the six months before the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I have always been very concerned that the Bill seeks to regulate online gambling providers based outside the United Kingdom through advertising. It proposes that providers across the world should be told that if they obtain a UK Gambling Commission licence, they will be able to advertise in the United Kingdom. I have argued that it is better to secure compliance through proper enforcement—the stick of financial transaction-blocking rather than the carrot of the offer of being able to advertise in the United Kingdom.
To date, I have contended for that primarily on the basis that, for reasons that I will not repeat now, the offer of advertising is not a robust enforcement mechanism, rather than on the basis of the impact of this approach on the scale of gambling advertising. My reason has been that I assumed that increased gambling advertising was something to which the coalition Government were deeply committed because of the nature of this Bill.
The Bill radically changes the law regarding advertising. At present, it is legal for providers based only in the European Economic Area and white-listed jurisdictions to advertise in the United Kingdom. The Gambling Bill, however, changes this radically, proposing that any provider based in any jurisdiction in the world should be able to advertise in the United Kingdom so long as they obtain a UK Gambling Commission licence. This means that we will move from a place where providers in just 31 jurisdictions outside the UK can advertise in the UK to a place where providers in any of the 196 or so jurisdictions in the world can advertise if they obtain a Gambling Commission licence. This widens the jurisdictional scope for advertising online gambling in the UK by more than sixfold. That is a radical change, a change which I thought was as a result of the fact that the coalition Government not only want better regulation, in the sense that they want more companies to get Gambling Commission licences, but also want, or at least are relaxed about getting, much more advertising for online gambling. I thought that they could not have allowed such a Bill to go to Parliament if that was not the case.
Imagine my shock when on 2 March 2014, I read in the Sunday Times the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, state:
“I also think we need to look again at the regulation of gambling advertising across the UK. In particular, I ask myself if the seemingly constant gambling adverts on television are appropriate. Ofcom figures show a 600% increase in television gambling advertising between 2006 and 2012. This concerns me and I think many people feel uneasy about the high levels. For this reason I have asked the Advertising Standards Authority to review the codes for gambling advertising to see whether change is needed. The outcome of the review could see significant changes in the way gambling is advertised in Britain, ensuring children and the vulnerable are better protected”.
While I am pleased and delighted by that statement, I am at a loss to know how the Secretary of State can make this assertion on the one hand, yet on the other be taking through Parliament a Bill that widens the scope for online gambling providers to advertise in the United Kingdom from 31 jurisdictions to providers in every jurisdiction in the world, so long as they obtain a UK Gambling Commission licence. The Secretary of State is rightly concerned about a 600% increase in television gambling advertising between 2006 and 2012 but she should also be very concerned about the 600% increase in jurisdictions hosting online gambling providers that she says should be able to advertise in the UK if they get a Gambling Commission licence.
I know that at this point some may be tempted to say, “Don’t worry, all these providers will only get the opportunity to advertise because they also come under our regulation”. The implication is that regulated advertising is okay. However, the scale of advertising to which the Secretary of State referred, like the 600% increase in television advertising, is legal and regulated but that does not make it unproblematic. Britain’s primary problem is not the scale of illegal, unregulated advertising but rather, as the Secretary of State’s comments make plain, the scale of legal, regulated advertising which this Bill proposes further to increase.
Today, as the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, we have a problem about the scale of gambling advertising following the 2005 Act. Yet the truth is that we are about to sanction the 2014 Act, which will, if you are concerned about the scale of advertising, make matters much worse, dramatically widening the scope for regulated gambling advertising. It seems to me that the only logical response to the concerns expressed by the Secretary of State about the scale of regulated gambling advertising in the United Kingdom is to narrow the scope for such advertising, not dramatically widen it as this Bill does. In that context, rather than sanctioning Clause 2, arguably the more sensible thing to do would be to delete it. I have, however, opted for a much more modest approach of delaying its implementation.
My amendment states that an,
“order under subsection (5) relating to the commencement of section 2 may not be made until the Secretary of State has reported to Parliament on the outcome of any reviews into advertising of gambling in Britain that they have commissioned in the six months before the day on which this Act is passed”.
Given the significant contradiction—a kinder phraseology would be tension—in the Government’s position and the scale of public concern about what they are proposing, the very least that the Government should do is to delay commencing Section 2 until after the Government have reported to Parliament on the four initiatives that the Minister outlined in his response to Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on Report on 4 March.
In that context, I have two questions for the Minister. First, there seems to be some confusion about the timings of the reports to which the Minister and the Secretary of State committed themselves last week. Will the Minister clarify the timetable? I hope that he can tell us that all reports will be made to Parliament within six months. Secondly, and much more importantly, what assurances can he give Parliament about the future of advertising regulations, especially under the Bill? His response to this question is important.
If we are to be generous to the Government, the only way that they can introduce the Bill and for its advertising implications not to contradict the thrust of what the Secretary of State said about the scale of regulated gambling advertising on 2 March—especially the 600% increase in TV advertising—would be to do the following: first, significantly to tighten up regulation of the gambling advertising that is currently permitted before the Bill takes effect, such that the scale of advertising is significantly reduced; and, secondly, for the regulations governing the operators that will, courtesy of the Bill before us today, be allowed to advertise in the United Kingdom from abroad to be applied very tightly from day one.
If the current level of advertising is significantly reduced, there may be space for a small increase in advertising from online providers from abroad without that increasing the scale of gambling advertising. This strategy of significantly tightening current advertising and then allowing new advertising through the Bill only on a limited basis is the only possible way in which the Secretary of State’s expression of concern about the scale of gambling advertising—I note again the 600% increase in TV advertising—can possibly be reconciled with the Bill.
To that end, I very much hope that the Minister will provide the strongest possible assurance that the Government intend to embrace the amendment. In this regard, I note with great concern that Section 328 of the Gambling Act 2005 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations controlling the advertising of gambling, but the Explanatory Notes to the current Bill say that no regulations have been made under Section 328 to regulate advertising. I suggest that that needs to change. What does the Secretary of State intend to do with her order-making powers?
Mindful of the importance of the Secretary of State’s expression of concern about the scale of regulated gambling advertising and the fact that the Bill dramatically widens the scope for such advertising throughout the United Kingdom, it is only proper that the advertising provisions in the Bill do not come into effect until the advertising review process has been completed and the findings presented to Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I fully associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont. I shall not repeat what he said, but merely underline that he is absolutely right to highlight the contradiction between the impact of the Bill on advertising and the statement of the Secretary of State expressing concerns about the current level of advertising, even before this law has taken effect. It is vital that we insist that Parliament should be given time to respond to the gambling advertising review promised on Report—it is, I would stress, a response to the Secretary of State’s concern about the current scope for gambling advertising which this Bill will dramatically widen—before Clause 2 of this Bill is commenced.
The truth is that because of this Bill the Government hope that we will sanction online gambling providers right across the world, including countries such as China, Korea, Brazil and Argentina, which for the first time will be able to advertise in the UK if they get a Gambling Commission licence. This seems, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has said, a strange way of responding to the significant and legitimate concerns expressed by the Secretary of State on 2 March. There are other ways of regulating that do not mean that any increase in regulation must result in an increase in advertising, as financial transaction blocking demonstrates so very plainly.
I look forward to what the Minister has to say because, as I failed to point out when I spoke earlier, he has definitely been a listening Minister and has tried his best to meet our concerns. However, I am sad to say it does not look as if this issue has been met.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we are slightly surprised to be revisiting this issue today. Although it is very important, it was discussed in some detail on Report, so we have to be impressed by the way the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, has convinced the Public Bill Office that it was right that he should be allowed to do so. He is clearly someone we shall have to listen to in the future if we want to have our evil way. However, as he has just said, there was a fair amount of confusion at the time, with letters from the Minister crossing with interviews and public statements by the Secretary of State. It is obviously important therefore to use this opportunity to try to tease out the issues that are in play here, and in particular what dates we are actually talking about.
The fact that the issue is coming back to the House at this stage says something important about our concerns about the way our “gambling culture” is developing and its potential to impoverish and cause irreparable social damage to the most vulnerable people in the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the question of why the Bill does not deal with the ills caused by gambling in her intervention on the first amendment, and she has just spoken again on the same point. I agree with her that this is something that we might have to look at again when we consider the Consumer Rights Bill, which is due to come to this House in June.
While gambling may not bring down dilettante Dukes, it certainly does affect others. Your Lordships’ House heard in Committee from several noble Lords who had been most grievously affected in this regard. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, sponsored a meeting at which ordinary people who had been addicted to gambling spoke movingly about their experiences and the need for the Government to take action in regard to their concerns. As we have heard, there was a report on the specific point about the watershed for gambling advertising and the spread of gambling more generally, including advertising for bingo, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jones. I understand the position to be as follows, and I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to respond, could confirm it.
The relaxation of restrictions on gambling advertising that followed the implementation of the Gambling Act 2005 has led to a significantly greater volume of gambling advertising on TV and in other media. In addition, the gambling industry has been innovative and the existing voluntary codes that govern gambling advertising are now applied across a much changed gambling landscape. These technological developments have led to intense competition in remote gambling advertising which has coincided with an increase in complaints and concerns, as I have already mentioned. On Report, the Minister explained that the Government have been monitoring the impact of these developments and considering whether the current controls remain adequate across remote gambling advertising and other forms of online gaming activity, including online bingo.
The Minister went on to say that the Government have asked four bodies to do further work. First, the Remote Gambling Association will co-ordinate an industry-led review of the voluntary gambling codes and will come 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 by the Responsible Gambling Trust this month, and will examine the available evidence on gambling advertising and its relationship with problem gambling. We are told that the committees will publish their findings on completion of this work, which could lead to changes in the principal codes controlling gambling advertising, this time by autumn. Thirdly, the Advertising Standards Authority will undertake a review of enforcement action under 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, we are told, will communicate the outcome by autumn 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. Although this work is principally focused on ensuring that free bets and bonus offers are marketed in a fair and open way in the gambling industry, it will cover a wider range. I note that the last item had no date specified for its completion, and would be grateful if the Minister could specify in his reply when he expects the Gambling Commission to report on its review.
This is a complicated field, with lots of cross-cutting and interesting work going on, and the timings are slightly out of sync. It is therefore right that the noble Lord should press the Minister to come up with a clear statement about where exactly these timings are. When the Minister does that, perhaps he can also comment on a point that he made in the previous debate, when he said:
“The terms of reference for the reviews are currently being defined and will be made public by the spring”.
A shaft of sunlight just illuminated our gloomy surroundings here, so I gather that spring is on the way. But when exactly is spring, and could we please have these statements so that we can look at them?
On the question of dates and times, the Minister said:
“Any statutory regulations would be preceded by consultation”,
which is good. He also said that the Government,
“will consider the findings of the review before determining what further action may be necessary”—
I would be surprised if they did not—and,
“will confirm their position by the end of the year”,
which is perhaps another variation on “autumn” and “towards Christmas”. He said that he,
“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”.—[Official Report, 4/3/14; col. 1297.]
The trope that is coming through is “by the end of the year”. We assume that is this year, although it would be helpful if we could have some clarity on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, in her response to the debate on Report, welcomed the change in mood and position from the Secretary of State and the Minister over the past couple of months, welcomed the detail that the Minister had spelt out and, with some reservations, welcomed the commitments that the Minister gave in that debate. However, when she withdrew her amendment, she warned the Minister that,
“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”.—[Official Report, 4/3/14; col.1298.]
He has been warned. I can sympathise with the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, to see this all tightened up and nailed down. I hope the Minister can repeat the commitments he gave on Report and confirm that his understanding is that we will have action on this troubling issue by the end of this year, 2014, at the latest.
As this is the last time I shall speak on this Bill, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for the constructive and positive way in which we have been able to make improvements to this Bill during its time in your Lordships’ House. We also got a great deal of support from the Bill team. I thank them for their support, which has been of great assistance.
As I said at Second Reading, I suspect that this is not the last time we will need to turn our attention to gambling, not least because the gambling industry is changing so rapidly, but also because of growing concerns about problem gambling, which I have already mentioned. In addition, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who were both in their places a moment ago, made the point that we need to get a proper law in this country about match fixing. The Bills that we are talking about are about preventing problems in gambling and do not really go to the heart of one of the issues that is growing in importance across the country. There is evidence that match fixing is going on with a view to gain, which is something that we must act on. The laws that we currently have do not deal with this problem. We were not able to make changes in this rather tightly drawn Bill, but I think and hope that the arguments have been heard. If we do come back to it, it will at least be on the basis of a very much better understanding of the issues, which we have gained in our very good debates in recent months.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for discussing his amendment with me earlier today, which I certainly found helpful. As the noble Lord said, this amendment seeks to delay the commencement of the repeal of Section 331 of the Gambling Act 2005 until the Government have reported to Parliament on the outcome of ongoing reviews into gambling.
First, I will be very clear about this. Clause 2 of the Bill is not about liberalisation of remote gambling advertising. It is a regulatory measure, and I will explain to your Lordships why I believe it is very necessary. The effect of Clause 2 is that, for the first time, remote gambling operators based in EEA or white-list states will be able to advertise and offer remote gambling to British consumers only if they are regulated by the Gambling Commission. At present, remote gambling operators based in EEA or white-list countries may advertise and offer remote gambling to British consumers without the need for a remote operating licence from the Gambling Commission, regardless of the quality of their home regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has expressed concern about a potential increase in the overall volume of gambling advertising as a result of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that the existing television scheduling restrictions will significantly limit the potential for any increase in the volume of advertising. As a consequence of the Bill, all gambling advertising will be subject to the regulatory rigour of the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, ensuring consistent standards across the piece. This is a significant development that will extend regulatory control over the type of advertising that may be shown in Great Britain.
As a result of the Bill, new gambling operators that wish to advertise in Britain will need to comply with the advertising codes of practice. These codes put in place strict controls in relation to gambling advertising and children: for example, advertisements must not appeal to, or include, children and young people and they must not glamorise gambling or suggest it as a solution to financial concerns. Advertisements that breach the code have to be amended or withdrawn. In addition, the Gambling Commission’s code of practice provides that operators must adhere to the advertising codes and ensure that all gambling advertising is undertaken in a socially responsible manner. Failure to take account of this can be used as evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and may be taken into account by the commission in a review of the operator’s licence.
Indeed, earlier this month, the Advertising Standards Authority used powers under the advertising codes to take interim action against an operator following an unprecedented number of complaints. In this case, the Advertising Standards Authority judged that the advertisement may have been seriously prejudicial to the general public on the ground of the likely serious offence it may have caused. However, because the operator concerned is based outside Great Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority could apply its ruling only to national print media and not the operator’s website. Once operators are licensed under the new arrangements, regulatory action could be taken by the Gambling Commission.
To postpone commencement of the Bill until the end of this year, when the Government will be reporting on the outcome of ongoing advertising work, would delay the considerable benefits to consumers that the Bill will bring. It would undermine the achievement of the consumer protection purposes of the Bill, not just in respect of advertising but more widely. The noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised, quite rightly, the aspect of vulnerable people. The Bill requires operators to comply with Gambling Commission licence conditions specifically protecting children and vulnerable adults; for example, in relation to self-exclusion and other requirements to support consumers who experience problems. Having looked at this very thoroughly since my meeting with the noble Lord this morning, on reflection I believe that delay is simply not in the interests of British-based consumers.
I made it clear on Report, in reply to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the Government’s intent, that the review of the existing advertising arrangements is under way. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred rightly to the changing landscape that we have seen following the Gambling Act 2005. I confirm that the findings will be available in the autumn. This work will be taken forward by the Gambling Commission, the Advertising Standards Authority, the committees of advertising practice and the Remote Gambling Association. Clearly, it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of the reviews, but I can assure noble Lords that they will be comprehensive and will seek to determine what changes might be necessary to ensure adequate protection.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, and I am pleased that the Public Bill Office gave me the opportunity to raise this amendment.
I have listened carefully to everything that the Minister has had to say. I would first stress that I fully understand that this Bill does not extend the freedom to advertise to all jurisdictions on the basis of the current arrangement with the EEA and white-listed jurisdictions. Under the new proposals, all providers will be required to get a Gambling Commission licence, which I welcome. My point is that, because the Government have selected an approach that uses the offer of advertising to extend regulation, the extension of regulation must also bring an extension of advertising—advertising for a form of gambling with a higher problem-prevalence figure than gambling generally.
I am also slightly concerned by the implication that the Minister does not think the new Bill will necessarily result in an increase in the advertising of online gambling. Of course, I understand that there are not online gambling providers in every jurisdiction in the world who want to access the UK market, just as there are not online gambling providers in every EEA jurisdiction that wish to access it under current arrangements. However, given the current realities of the global gambling market, it seems that the only way the Bill could not result in a significant increase in advertising would be on the basis of providers accessing the UK market without a licence. That is frightening and demonstrates very clearly why the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, was absolutely right to press for financial transaction blocking.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not commit to ensure that the regulatory regime with respect to current advertising and new advertising resulting from this Bill will be deployed more actively, in order significantly to reduce the former and to limit the latter, so that the combined effect of both the continuation of advertising in the current context plus the new advertising facilitated by this Bill does not have the effect of introducing a net increase in the amount of gambling. I believe that he should have either undertaken to accept my amendment or committed to tighten the regulatory framework significantly. Without having taken either of those steps, the comments of the Secretary of State on 2 March are at odds with the impact of the Bill.
However, today I sought to put down a marker and possibly highlight a contradiction in the Government’s position. I look forward to the four independent reports and I am sure that I will make submissions to those. I hope that that they will come along with my way of thinking. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Ukraine
(10 years, 9 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, these are momentous times in Ukraine, where ordinary citizens have made a stand against a corrupt regime that sought to trample on their aspirations for a European future. That future is threatened by the cynical and artificial stimulation of ethnic-based tensions as a cover for an illegal attempt to undermine the sovereignty of Ukraine. Our national interest is clear in Ukraine being able to make its own decisions, the upholding of international law and the UN charter, and the prevention of further violations of the sovereignty of independent European states in this way.
Noble Lords will recall that massive demonstrations began in Kiev in November in response to the unexpected announcement of the then President, Viktor Yanukovych, that he would not sign the EU association agreement. After various attempts to disperse the demonstrations, Yanukovych resorted to extreme measures in the week beginning 17 February, when more than 80 people were killed and more than 600 injured. In the wake of such bloodshed, the EU brokered a deal between Mr Yanukovych and the opposition to end the violence on 21 February. However, that same night Mr Yanukovych fled Kiev, thus neglecting his very first responsibility under the deal: to sign within 48 hours a law to return to the 2004 constitution. We are clear that under the extraordinary circumstances of a President abandoning his post, the Ukrainian parliament—the Rada—had the right to appoint an interim President and Government, as laid down in Ukrainian constitutional law.
The majority of the international community, including the UK, resolved to put all efforts into helping to quickly stabilise Ukraine, but unfortunately others sought to exploit the situation for their own ends. On 1 March, Russia’s parliament approved President Vladimir Putin’s request to use Russian forces in Ukraine. Within days, Russian troops besieged Ukrainian forces in Crimea. The Government continue to make clear their utter condemnation of Russia’s invasion, the violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the cynical campaign of misinformation Russia conducted as a cover for its illegal actions in Crimea. Two days after Russian forces took control, Crimea’s parliament asked to join Russia and announced that the matter would be put to a referendum just 10 days later.
On Friday, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov before their bilateral talks in London. Russia was presented with a series of proposals to de-escalate the crisis and to address the situation in Crimea. After six hours of talks, Russia rebuffed those efforts. On Saturday 15 March, the UN Security Council voted on a resolution condemning the referendum as unconstitutional and illegitimate, which was co-sponsored by 42 nations. Russia was completely isolated in vetoing the text, while 13 members of the Security Council voted in favour and China abstained.
The Crimean referendum was indeed held on Sunday 16 March. The UK condemns the fact that the referendum has taken place in breach of the Ukrainian constitution and in defiance of calls by the international community for restraint. In common with the majority of the international community, we recognise neither the referendum nor its outcome. The referendum was clearly illegal under the Ukrainian constitution, which states that the autonomous republic of Crimea is an integral constituent part of Ukraine, that issues related to its authority must be resolved within the provisions of the constitution and that only the Ukrainian parliament has the right to call such a referendum.
Nor can the vote be considered to be free or fair. Crimea is occupied by an estimated 30,000 Russian troops and the meeting of the Crimean parliament that announced the referendum was itself controlled by unidentified armed gunmen and took place behind locked doors. The referendum took place at 10 days’ notice without the leaders of Ukraine being able to visit Crimea and without meeting any of the OSCE standards for democratic elections. Furthermore, the ballot paper asks the people of Crimea to decide either to become part of the Russian Federation or to revert to the highly ambiguous 1992 constitution, which would give the Crimean parliament the power to decide to join Russia. There was no option on the ballot paper for those who support the status quo and want Crimea to stay as it is—an autonomous region of Ukraine. The House should be in no doubt that this was a mockery of democratic practice.
The Government have played an active role in seeking a peaceful resolution to the crisis that respects the aspirations of the majority of the Ukrainian people. Along with major partners such as the EU and the US, we have sought to address the political and economic crisis in Ukraine. At the same time, we are working intensively to build international consensus that there must be consequences for Russia if it continues its flagrant disregard for international law.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening, but perhaps we can clarify something at the beginning of this debate. She keeps referring to breaches of international law, but in the Kosovo case, the president of the International Court of Justice, Hisashi Owada, said that international law contains,
“no prohibition on declarations of independence”.
The court also said that while the declaration may not have been illegal, the issue of recognition was a political one. Why is that case so different from the case that we are examining today?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I will have an opportunity to consider that specific question and will make sure that it is answered during this debate if we have that information.
On 6 March, an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in which the Prime Minister played a pivotal role agreed a three-phase approach to stand up to Russia’s illegal behaviour: first, immediate steps to respond to what Russia has done; secondly, urgent work on a set of measures to follow if Russia refuses to enter dialogue with the Ukrainian Government; and, thirdly, a set of further, far-reaching consequences should Russia take further steps to destabilise the situation in Ukraine.
I am sure that your Lordships would appreciate more detail on each of those steps, and I will take them in turn. First, as a response to what Russia has already done, immediate steps have already been taken. We have suspended preparations for the G8 summit in Sochi indefinitely. We have withdrawn royal and ministerial visits to the Sochi Paralympic Games. Work on a comprehensive new agreement on relations between Russia and the European Union has ceased, and the EU has suspended discussions on a more liberal visa regime in the Schengen area—a long-standing goal of Russian policy.
In the second phase, and in company with other allies, we have worked to persuade Russia to negotiate with the Government of Ukraine about their concerns rather than resorting to illegal measures. We have pushed for the creation of a contact group, first proposed by the Prime Minister back in January. The European Council agreed that such talks should start within a matter of days or further measures would be adopted—the so-called second phase. Yesterday, on 17 March, the Foreign Affairs Council agreed additional measures including asset freezes and travel bans against 21 individuals responsible for actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. These measures are in addition to those already agreed against Yanukovych and his circle.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
Has the Minister noted President Putin’s contemptuous remarks about those sanctions this morning? Did she also note that yesterday the Russian stock market rose by more than 5% in one day with relief that the sanctions were so weak and shallow? In effect, have these sanctions not been so derisory as to ensure that the Russians feel that there is hardly any cost at all to them in taking over Crimea, which has a great psychological as well as a strategic significance for them? It was really cheap at the price that we have set.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I did notice the specific comments to which the noble Lord refers. We fundamentally believe that the issue of sanctions will work; indeed, it has worked in a number of scenarios in relation to other foreign policy matters. These sanctions are currently being kept under review and the situation as it develops will be responded to with further measures, including further sanctions.
Thirdly and most significantly, the Council agreed that if further steps were taken by Russia to destabilise Ukraine there would be “additional and far-reaching consequences” for the relationship between Russia and the EU, including,
“in a broad range of economic areas”.
The Prime Minister played a leading role in helping to reach this agreement, including through convening a meeting with fellow leaders from France, Germany, Italy and Poland on the morning of the Council. Such sanctions would have consequences for many EU member states, including Britain, but the Government believe that the costs of not standing up to aggression are far greater.
Finally, the Council sent a clear message of support to Ukraine by agreeing to accelerate the signature of the political part of the EU’s association agreement with Ukraine and by unilaterally lowering trade tariffs. The EU has now frozen the assets of 18 people linked to the former regime, and Britain has deployed a team to Kiev from our National Crime Agency to help the new Ukrainian Government track down misappropriated funds. Ukraine also needs support for its economy. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been at the forefront of efforts to co-ordinate an international package of support for Ukraine, drawing principally on IMF and EU funds.
The Prime Minister announced last week that we would review all UK bilateral military co-operation with Russia. Today, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has announced that we have suspended all such co-operation, including the signing of the military technical co-operation agreement, along with the cancellation of this year’s France-Russia-US-UK naval exercise and the suspension of a proposed Royal Navy ship visit to St Petersburg and of all senior military visits. We believe that under current circumstances, there is a compelling case for EU member states to suspend export licensing for military and dual-use items destined for units of the Russian armed forces or other state agencies which could be, or are being, deployed against Ukraine. The UK has now, with immediate effect, suspended all licence and application processing for licences for direct export to Russia. We will also suspended licences for exports to a third country for incorporation into equipment for export to Russia where there is a clear risk that the end product could and will be used against Ukraine.
A major focus for the interim Government in Ukraine and the international community is to ensure that the pre-term presidential elections called for 25 May are properly conducted, enabling all Ukrainians, including Russian speakers and minorities, to choose their leaders freely. Britain is providing technical assistance to support these elections and to assist with reforms on public finance management, debt management and energy pricing.
Europe is facing a grave challenge to the peace and security that we have worked so hard to build since the end of the Second World War. That security has hinged on respecting the territorial integrity of our neighbours. History has taught us many hard lessons about the dangers of turning a blind eye when the rights of fellow Europeans are being threatened. I am sure noble Lords will agree with the Prime Minister’s recent statement that we must stand up to aggression, uphold international law and support the Ukrainian Government and the Ukrainian people. They surely have the right to make their own choices about their own future. That is right for Europe, right for Ukraine and right for Britain.
The reality on the ground in Ukraine has constantly changed over the past few weeks and, regrettably, will continue to do so. I have sought to keep the House regularly informed through debates and Questions and have benefited from the expertise and knowledge of noble Lords from all sides of the House. Today’s debate is another timely opportunity to update noble Lords and to take note of the interventions, suggestions and views of the House.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the history of this crisis and the Government’s response so far. In my judgment, the Government have acted thus far in a very sure-footed way in a continuing, fast-moving crisis. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of the European Union as an instrument of our policy, and that we will be ready to use that instrument far more than in the past.
We are clearly witnessing the most important and severe crisis in East-West relations since the fall of the Berlin Wall. I shall not go back to 1945, because we have had the invasion of Hungary, the Cuban missile crisis and the attack on Czechoslovakia. What is clear is that Russia is about to annex Crimea. It is a fait accompli. Russia is creating another frozen conflict in Europe, joining Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria in Moldova, which is probably the most vulnerable of all the neighbouring countries. It is uncertain whether Russia will follow a similar course with east Ukraine, and possibly with other neighbouring countries. Perhaps the nearest precedent is that of Sudetenland in 1938, when the Nazis—the Russians will clearly not like this precedent—invaded in response to calls from their compatriots in the then Czechoslovakia. We have to ask: when will President Putin stop? It is also uncertain whether each move by Russia has been planned in advance like a sophisticated game of chess, even over the referendum. Perhaps one could plausibly ask: if there is a referendum in Crimea, why not a referendum in Chechnya, in Dagestan or in other parts of the Caucasus?
This crisis is an opportunity to learn more about Russia and perhaps to shed some of our illusions about contemporary Russia. It is also an opportunity to learn more about ourselves in the democratic West and whether the main priorities of our foreign policy are based on commerce or on wider strategic principles. Of particular interest is the robust response of an awakened Germany. I contrast the response of Chancellor Schroeder, who joined Nord Stream shortly after he left office, with the response of Chancellor Merkel. Germany now seems prepared to give far greater prominence to longer-term strategic interests over short-term commercial considerations. I certainly welcome this new assertiveness of a democratic Germany.
Our starting point is surely recognising that Russia has important interests of history, geography and ethnicity in Ukraine. Thus, the immediate response of Kiev, which was soon rescinded, in relation to the Russian language was most unwise. These clear interests of Russia could, with good will, have been accommodated, for example, through international guarantees for the Russian minority, including on the status of the Russian language, more autonomy and a voluntary renunciation of joining military alliances—that is, neutrality. However, the agenda of President Putin was clearly wider than that.
Since the early 1990s, we in the West have treated Russia on a basis that we now think of as an illusion, in the vain hope that Russia was firmly on the path to democracy. There was some evidence of that during the time of President Yeltsin, however chaotic. We have been prepared to overlook serious failings, ignoring the almost Stalinist monolith of so many Russian parliamentary responses, culminating in the unanimous vote in the Russian Parliament in respect of military intervention in Ukraine. It was unanimous: there was not one dissident in that parliament—no one prepared to say, “Don’t count me in on that”.
We have accepted on the way, after a short-lived process, the Litvinenko affair, Magnitsky, the invasion and continued occupation of 20% of Georgia since 2008, and the Russian failure to comply with the ceasefire agreement over Georgia in that year. Russia has ignored international agreements such as that in Budapest, and a guarantor power of the Budapest agreement is now the aggressor, undermining the territorial integrity of the country it purported to guarantee. The fact that Russia was prepared to lie so blatantly—for example, on the presence of Russian troops in Crimea, outside its military bases—is bound to shake confidence in Russia in the short and medium term.
Again, what does the crisis tell us about the firmness of the West so far? The response, I concede, has been weak. “Great things we shall do”, but, as my noble friend has said, we have done very little thus far. Let us accept that a step-by-step process is relevant, important interests are involved and one country should not be expected to bear a disproportionate burden of the pain. President Putin clearly relies on disarray on the western side. Will there be business as usual with Russia after a short interval? No, our illusions should be over. We should have a far more realistic policy towards Russia.
What should be our appropriate response? First, we should assist Ukraine economically, financially and politically, for example, in democracy-building. Secondly, we should recognise that the diplomatic track is unlikely to lead anywhere, seek to contain and isolate Russia at the United Nations and elsewhere, and make clear to Russians privately that there are indeed red lines. We should give reassurances, particularly to our Baltic allies, who are very concerned at the moment. Is it too optimistic to see the beginning of a stronger European foreign policy emerging from this crisis?
We should also consider the position of Russia in those international organisations of which it is a member which deal with human rights. We think, for example, of the OSCE, which came into being after the Helsinki agreements of 1975, and the basket containing human rights that are so massively infringed by Russia. We think of the Council of Europe, the main human rights organisation in Europe, with its 48 countries. I note that the Conservative group has withdrawn from the family group in the parliamentary assembly which contained Russia, the EDG. Is it too much to ask that the Conservatives should consider joining the mainstream right-wing family, the EPP? Or is that a joining too far?
Finally, on sanctions, the travel bans and asset freezes are relatively easy. Economic and financial sanctions must be calibrated and, I accept, further down the track; but they are likely to be the most effective. I think of South Africa in 1986. The real blow to the apartheid regime came when the Chase Manhattan bank refused to roll over certain loans in respect of South Africa.
Russia must be forced to pay a heavy price, but let us also accept that we will have to pay a price, economically and commercially, because of the shock to the world economy. We need to reduce our dependence on Russian oil and gas. The world is now awash with oil. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, may have a few well chosen words to say on that theme later when he comes to speak.
Already, after the failure of the Kerry-Lavrov talks, billions of dollars have been repatriated from the West by Russians, yields on Russian government 10-year bonds have risen sharply, and the rouble has fallen to a record low. Yes, there has been a slight upturn in the Russian stock exchange, but I judge that that will be short-lived as further sanctions take place along the road.
Russia is already paying a heavy price, and all this before effective sanctions. The next few weeks will be a clear test for the West: a test of our international credibility. Many friends—those who are currently apprehensive in the world, including many of Russia’s neighbours—will be watching our reaction very closely.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for setting out the Government’s action so far on the Ukrainian crisis.
Notwithstanding the fraudulent and bogus events surrounding the illegal referendum in Crimea at the weekend, one event stands out as particularly sinister. On the 13 March, the Times carried reports that two prominent Ukrainian community leaders in Crimea were seized by police. When challenged as to their whereabouts, the newly appointed Crimean Minister for Information declared that they never existed. Dmitri Polonsky said:
“There is no Ukrainian community in the Crimea, and so there are no missing community leaders”,
using the logic of Orwell’s thought police, which I am sure noble Lords will remember. As the Times commented, this Orwellian logic allowed Polonsky an answer for everything, from human rights abuses, to prejudice, to the legality of the referendum. According to Polonsky, accounts of Crimean Tatars having their passports confiscated by bogus election commission teams were a distraction. As the Minister of Information said:
“Yes, we know about these events … The actions were carried out by Tartars against themselves, as provocations against the authorities”.
As for the gunfire from pro-Russian militias to block access from Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—OSCE—observers into Crimea, that was just an,
“expression of disappointment by local people”,
who were irritated by the “interference”. Polonsky had no concerns over the legitimacy of Crimea’s new parliament, or that its leader came from a political party that achieved just 4% in the previous parliamentary elections in Crimea.
The referendum result has, of course, effectively guaranteed Crimea’s secession from Ukraine, despite being conducted in an atmosphere of militarist repression, enforced, as the Minister said, by more than 80,000 Russian troops, some 270 tanks and 140 combat aircraft, and despite being deemed illegal by the OSCE, of which Russia is a member.
President Putin singularly declared that the result of the Crimean referendum was entirely legal and binding and essential to protect the population that is ethnically Russian or had Russian citizenship. He blandly ignored the fact that the UN Security Council, as the Minister mentioned, had decided overwhelmingly that it was not legal—yet another example of Orwellian “misinformation”, particularly if it is to be a precursor to justifying an expansionist annexation policy across eastern Europe and Asia.
Should we be surprised? Certainly my own parliamentary interactions with Russian politicians over the past decade would indicate that no, we should not, for a variety of reasons. Meeting the Russian defence committee in Moscow a few years ago, for example, was anything but diplomatic. Their members, all generals in full uniform, faced us across a long table with open hostility. Mind you, that was shortly after NATO had destroyed the government buildings in Belgrade with precision bombing—although as we subsequently discovered when visiting the city, the Serbs viewed that event far more pragmatically than their Russian supporters.
I recall asking the chairman of the committee—mainly in the hope of deflecting the mounting hostility—where they hoped to see Russia in 10 years’ time. The outpouring of emotion was overwhelming, and best summed up as a universal and fervent wish for Russia to be returned to the great power she had been under communism. Thereby, I believe, lies the rub.
A similar meeting with the foreign relations committee of the Duma, which I think that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was leading at that time, proved equally hostile, with no attempt to follow the courtesies of diplomacy. Their chairman began by loudly shouting and berating the UK for not supporting Russia in its dispute with Estonia over plans to move a memorial in the centre of Tallinn which commemorated Russian soldiers who died fighting the Nazis in World War II. According to the Russian chairman, this was the most important issue in foreign policy dividing Russia and the west. It gave me a good insight into how politics was conducted in Russia at that time.
At a meeting in Moscow around 2005 with the Russian state economics committee, I believe it was—I did not quite catch the full title—we were lectured by a senior economist who, from his demeanour, appeared to be a survivor from the communist era of centrally planned economics. He pointed out that our North Sea oil and gas reserves were forecast to be exhausted within the next 40 years. In contrast, Russia’s reserves could supply the west indefinitely, with the implication that this was dependent on maintaining friendly and, presumably, agreeable, relations. This was close to a decade ago. There seemed to be no awareness that in the capitalist, democratic, free world, with full flexibility in supply and demand, market forces determined these outcomes rather than political dogma.
If we take Putin’s justification for annexing Crimea—that is, protection of émigré Russians, either by ethnicity or by citizenship, justifies invasion of other sovereign territory—to its logical conclusion, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has already said, we start to move towards the territory of the annexation of Sudetenland in the 1930s. On this basis, we will find a number of smaller countries, previously part of the Soviet empire, at risk—not just in the Balkans but in Central Asia, where the Ukrainian crisis has put a number of leaders in a quandary. For example, while nervous over Moscow’s military show of power in Crimea, they are also anxious to downplay that end in the toppling of corrupt leaders of independent states under Russia’s influence. Leaders in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are now more aware of the risks entailed in hosting military facilities that belong to Russia. The largest military land base outside Russia, the 201st Motorised Rifle Division, is in Tajikistan, while Kazakhstan shares a common border of nearly 7,000 kilometres with Russia and has the second largest ethnic Russian population after Ukraine at nearly 25%.
The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also present risks of tension between native populations and Russian migrants. Stalin’s brutal policies of the transportation of tens of thousands from the Baltic states to Siberia, leading to mass deaths through starvation and cold and replacement with Russian workers, servicemen and their families, is a well documented part of history. In consequence, in Estonia, 38% of Tallinn’s population is ethnically Russian and 56% speak Russian as their mother tongue. In the north-eastern cities of Estonia, as many as 82% of the population are ethnically Russian. This legacy of Russianisation spreads throughout the old Soviet empire.
There is no credible evidence of threats against Russian citizens, or of an armed attack, or even a planned attack against Russian military assets. Western leaders have repeatedly called for Russia to abide by the terms of the 1994 Budapest memorandum, where Russia, the United Kingdom and America reaffirmed 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 UN”.
Clearly, such treaties mean little in Putin’s thinking. If the aggressive approach of the Russian Duma’s parliamentary committees in meetings with counterparts is any guide, it seems that positive action is the only sensible response to the invasion of Crimea.
Without delay, our Government should follow the recommendations set out in the letter of 21 February from Transparency International UK to the Chancellor to prevent the transfer of suspicious financial transactions to the UK from Ukraine, placing money laundering officers on alert, and taking proactive action to prevent money laundering from Ukraine. Following the Chancellor’s positive response to that letter and that request from TIUK, the Government should provide regular reports to this House, setting out actions taken and the results achieved.
Ukraine has already lost the equivalent of almost half its GDP to outflows into offshore accounts over the past three years. Some of these funds have been laundered through the UK, or through UK-linked jurisdictions, with the help of UK bankers, accountants and lawyers. These assets must be identified and returned without delay. The Government must take preventive measures to stop this happening again.
Russian participation in the G8 should be cancelled, its OSCE membership should be reviewed and trade negotiations suspended. Russian membership of European institutions, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe should be revoked and visas and passes issued to Russian participants withdrawn.
In the medium term, the European Union should consider alternatives to the South Stream pipeline supplying Ukraine. The EU should consult with the Norwegian Government, western companies and liquid natural gas suppliers in the region to move forward with creating strategic gas reserves for Ukraine and east and central European countries. The EU should focus initial assistance to Ukraine on clearing its gas debt to Gazprom to reduce its leverage. The EU’s competition case against Gazprom should be accelerated.
The EU and the UK should begin discussions with the USA on changes to the latter’s domestic law to enable oil, gas, LNG, and shale gas and oil to be freely exported. The UK should review its energy policy as a matter of priority to exploit the opportunities offered by the reserves of shale gas and oil, and should be guided by science, not just opinion.
Finally, we should also be aware that the reaction within Russia is far from totally supportive of Putin. The opposition party, Yabloko, states that the position and actions of the powers that be in Russia in respect of Ukraine are a reckless political adventure and that it is unacceptable even to contemplate using Russian troops in Ukraine, while separation of Crimea from Ukraine and its annexation is an error at the highest level. It is calling for the immediate convening of an international conference on political, legal and military issues related to Ukraine and, in particular, the Crimean issues. The prime aims of the conference should be to restore the underlying legal framework in international relations and security, guarantee the integrity and maintain the viability of the Ukrainian state within the parliamentary framework and restore the rule of law in Crimea, observing the interests of Crimea’s population as a whole, with all its component groups, free from repression by political opponents.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness opening the debate rightly condemned Russian aggression in Crimea and MPs expressed similar disapproval earlier this afternoon. However, in the light of history, I am not sure that we could have done much about it.
I am a strong advocate of European enlargement, and it is undeniable that the acceptance of new applicants from eastern Europe and the Balkans has contributed to peace and stability there. However, as the EU nudges further east, we have to be especially careful not to upset and antagonise the Russian minority in Ukraine, or to risk that country becoming further divided. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, rightly referred to the innumerable instances of minorities all over Europe. The stealing back of Crimea makes eastern Ukraine the next target of Russian resentment and today’s attack on a Ukrainian garrison is ominous and another gross violation of international law.
The phrase “western allies” can be misleading. The EU cannot make a strong historical case for an alliance with Ukraine. As Kievan Rus, the first Slavic state converted to orthodox Christianity, Ukraine has been closely linked to Russia since its heyday in the 10th and 11th centuries. The country was subsequently ruled by both Lithuania and Poland, and its borders were never clearly drawn.
Crimea, too, has had a chequered history. The Crimean Tatars were dominant for more than three centuries until they were cruelly deported in large numbers by Stalin, and later unfairly discredited as Nazi sympathisers. Yet it was to prevent Russia from entering the Mediterranean that we fought alongside the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean War, but that policy obviously did not work.
I visited Yalta in 1964 and it never occurred to me then whether it was Russian or Ukrainian. Everything came under the USSR umbrella. I remember standing on the terrace overlooking the Black Sea where, in February 1945, the leaders of the US, UK and Russia had signed a historic agreement to divide Germany into three. Russia broke its promises then and it has broken them again now. The Cold War was still to come and nearly seven decades later we are wondering whether it has yet gone.
I do not expect war to break out over Ukraine. I prefer to think of the present crisis as a bad dream interrupting the course of history. It cannot and should not develop into hostilities. We have done with war in Europe, and I find the references to Sudetenland exaggerated and quite disturbing. All three Yalta powers should be honouring the 1994 Budapest agreement guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Instead, Putin is repeating his performance in Georgia in 2008 by first threatening and then virtually annexing sovereign territories in the name of defending Russian citizens.
What are President Putin’s motives? This has been the subject of great speculation, but it seems that the strongest motive is simply Mother Russia. This could be seen as imperialism and expansion in Crimea and eastern Ukraine but Crimea is inescapably part of Russian influence and naval domination of the Black Sea. Kiev, already central to the Rus legend, became the third city of the Soviet Union after Moscow and Leningrad. So we should not be too surprised that Ukraine is still on the Russian doorstep or that Russians have a great hankering after former glory.
While we, the US and individual states should complain to Russia through warnings and sanctions—as we would in any country where human rights and international law are aggressively violated—the EU should not make too many assumptions about Ukraine’s position as an ally. Ever since the Berlin Wall came down, Europe has faced east, looking beyond the boundaries of enlargement into new member states. It may be that the EU has been looking too enthusiastically at arrangements with countries directly bordering Russia. Since the Orange Revolution in Ukraine there has been a flurry of diplomatic visits to Kiev under the neighbourhood policy, as though Ukraine were already eligible for membership of the EU and NATO. In 2010, as we know, President Yanukovych excluded Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership from Ukraine’s national security strategy, but the concepts of European integration and co-operation with NATO have remained and it is likely that Yulia Tymoshenko, if she is re-elected, will want to return to the previous strategy and risk further Russian hostility, reminiscent of former President Saakashvili in Georgia.
Let us not forget the bigger picture in which Russia has to live up to its international responsibilities. The Syrian uprising this week has entered its fourth year unresolved, and the parties still have to come to the table. The Iran negotiations are still delicate. We need the Russians if we are to make progress in these areas. I do not agree with previous speakers that we should detach them from the G8 altogether. The action in Crimea was illegal but there is little we can do about it now. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on Kosovo is pertinent. Although the noble Lord is no longer in his place, I hope the Minister will spend a little time on that. It is of course President Putin’s own argument, and we must be careful in making the comparison, because the situation in Kosovo was, at a time of civil war, completely different.
In the mean time, while the interim Government of Ukraine wait for the May elections, every effort must be made—preferably through the OSCE and the new contact group which is being proposed—to support it and contain both Russian and Ukrainian battalions within their own borders. However, the more effective weapons are economic. Chancellor Merkel has taken a surprisingly tough line, accusing the Kremlin of following the law of the jungle and Mr Putin of living “in another world”. She is strongly insisting on new sanctions in the face of, it seems, at least two-thirds of Germans, who have serious doubts about their effectiveness.
While Germany remains the powerhouse of Europe, German companies will continue to trade with Russia and oligarchs will continue to visit their dachas in Baden Baden. France and Italy, not least as arms suppliers, are likely to make the same argument. Therefore, it is going to be a slow process. Sanctions will be pushed mainly by the United States, but Europe will more likely follow the market and select sanctions, which will only puncture its relationship—at least, that is my prediction. After all, Russia’s trade with Europe is more than 10 times that of the US, and the EU is unlikely to throw that away.
London has already lost a lot of Russian business in the scramble to anticipate sanctions. Would this not be an ideal time to review our dubious reputation as a money-laundering capital, as the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has already said, and identify the banks and companies that are living off illegal Russian investments and the laundered billions stashed away by Yanukovych and his family? Can the Minister please explain why this money could not be returned to Ukraine to support much-needed structural reforms alongside the new loans, or can the Government produce any other financial package for this purpose? What can the Government do through legislation to strengthen anti-money-laundering controls through the Financial Conduct Authority and other City watchdogs? Have any suspicious transactions in relation to Ukraine been reported to the FCA hitherto, and how can these be further investigated?
However the political and military crisis develops, what the latest power struggle comes down to in the end is, of course, aid and debt, and whether the EU and the IMF can afford to make up loans to Ukraine originally promised by Russia. If Russia turns down the energy tap, Germany and others must consider alternative gas supplies, which may not be immediately available from the US but they will be elsewhere. Ukraine at least has enough reserves of gas to get through to the elections.
Once our frantic diplomatic activity has achieved a stalemate, and perhaps, with luck, OSCE observers are in place, as usual it will be the markets that decide the future.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this debate and for her helpful setting out of the situation. We have heard some fascinating background regarding the very complex history behind the situation. My comments will focus on the religious dimension, which has not been drawn out very fully so far.
To illustrate that, another aspect of what has been going on this past weekend is that Crimea is of extraordinary significance as a holy place for the Russian nation, for Russian orthodoxy and for the Russian sensibility or psyche. Legend links St Andrew with the place—it was believed that he lived there. The Emperor Trajan sent Pope Clement into exile in Crimea, giving it a direct link with early Christianity. Although Prince Vladimir was converted from paganism to Christianity in 988 and baptised in Kiev, it was actually the Russians—the Moscow Patriarchate—who built a shrine in Chersonesos, claiming it as the site of this very significant baptism. Because of this heritage, the Russian Orthodox Church has been building monasteries in Crimea and has restored many of its holy places. It has been encouraging large numbers of pilgrims to go there, describing it as Russia’s Mount Athos. That is how it sees the place. It has huge significance in many other dimensions as well as the historic ones.
There is no reason why noble Lords will know about the long and painful ecclesiastical history in Ukraine. However, for many years, there has been deep-rooted mistrust and division between the western-facing Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate and the eastern-facing Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. They overlap in their jurisdictions. What perhaps is surprising is the extent to which all Ukraine’s churches have found common purpose in recent months. In September 2013, when President Yanukovych was openly talking about signing an association agreement with the EU, the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations supported the move and called on people not to oppose a new trajectory for Ukraine because of their traditional relations with Russia.
As the Maidan uprising turned violent, churches in Kiev, including Christ Church, the Anglican church in the city, acted as field hospitals for people wounded in the uprising. St Michael’s Golden-Domed Monastery became the main field hospital. A team of doctors were aided by priests from the monastery who distributed food and, of course, led prayers. From the very start, Ukraine’s religious communities have been extremely supportive of the political aspirations of the demonstrators. Many of Ukraine’s churches are members of the Conference of European Churches, while many Muslim organisations in Ukraine have long and active links with co-religionists in the EU, not least with the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe.
From a religious perspective, Maidan was a uniquely ecumenical and interfaith phenomenon. As churches responded to the new political reality, the barriers of mistrust started to erode. Some religious leaders actually started talking to one another. The synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate has even gone so far as to suggest to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate that perhaps it is time to reconcile differences and unite in one church.
It is early days but, given that Ukraine is the second-largest orthodox country after Russia, a united Ukrainian church would redraw the map of orthodoxy. The critical distance that has already emerged between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow is significant. President Putin, of course, belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church. State and church are extremely closely linked. Indeed, Metropolitan Kirill called on orthodox believers to vote for President Putin in the last election. He also flew to Kiev in 2010 to bless President Yanukovych’s presidency. Metropolitan Kirill has the ear of President Putin but, rather than acting as a brake on him—he is one of the people who probably could do something—it would appear that he is supportive of the Russian state’s ambitions.
If Russia were to manufacture further social unrest to justify moving beyond the Crimean peninsular, and if such a move was legitimised by Metropolitan Kirill, there is a very real danger that the Russian Orthodox Church will alienate Ukraine’s orthodox Christians permanently. Ukrainian churches are already taking steps to secure additional chaplains to help provide for the pastoral care and support of those who serve in the Ukrainian armed forces.
I turn now to the various media reports that have circulated in recent weeks suggesting that the Maidan had a dark, neo-fascist underbelly, and that Ukraine’s Jewish community was subject to attack and harassment. These reports have been dismissed as Russian propaganda by Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman, the Chabad Chief Rabbi of Kiev and Ukraine, who reported that Maidan self-defence units provided security for the synagogue in Kiev. Ten days ago, the Ukrainian Jewish Congress reported that there had been no reports of anti-Semitism since the uprising.
Sadly, the decision to demonise protesters as fascists has been deliberately used to stoke up deep-rooted and historic fears in Crimea as well as in eastern and southern parts of Ukraine. Priests in Sevastopol have faced harassment and abduction. Many have already evacuated their wives and children to the mainland. Given this climate of fear and intimidation, it is hard not to see the referendum as an exercise in annexation—a divorce at gunpoint rather than self-determination.
The situation in Crimea remains tense and uncertain. His Holiness the Patriarch of Kiev has expressed concern that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate will be outlawed in Crimea for its support of the Maidan, while other churches will be subordinated directly to the Most Holy Governing Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow.
Similar fears and anxieties face the Crimean Tatars. They, too, were supportive of the uprising and now face an uncertain future. For many in this Sunni Muslim community, Russia is linked indelibly with Stalin’s mass deportation of Tatars to central Asia in 1944. Their communal leaders urged them to boycott the referendum, saying that the idea of holding a vote while Crimea is occupied by Russian troops was a “farce”.
Noble Lords will recall that last August the national minorities unit of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe published a report warning that:
“Crimea faces a volatile mixture of acrimonious political competition, socioeconomic exclusion, inter- and intra-religious strife and a general atmosphere of increasing intolerance”.
The referendum will have done nothing to have diminished the risk of inter-ethnic violence.
Against this uncertain and volatile background, the Christian churches of Europe, through the Conference of European Churches, have been in contact with the All Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organisations, a body that includes Jewish and Muslim representatives as well as Christian churches. A letter signed by the present CEC president, known to many Members of your Lordships’ House as the recently retired Bishop of Guildford, expresses solidarity and support, urges an end to further polarisation in Ukrainian society and assures them that churches elsewhere in Europe are urging a democratic and diplomatic solution to the problems facing Ukraine. I know that Bishop Christopher Hill will be talking later this week to other European church leaders about how this solidarity and support can be given more tangible shape through the Conference of European Churches.
Even if this crisis has cast a Cold War shadow over Europe, it is important that we remain in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church. That is not always an easy task given the Russian orthodox world view. I am encouraged that only last month the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London met representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church to discuss the theological education of students from the Russian Orthodox Church here in the UK. However this crisis plays out, and I pray as I am sure many of us do for a speedy and peaceful resolution, it is important that we do not sanction measures that put such dialogue at risk.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I feel that in a dangerous situation of this kind the first duty is to escape from hyperbole. This is not a renewal of the Cold War and the 20th-century ideological conflict, which has passed into history. It is certainly not the greatest crisis in Europe since 1945—that is an absurd exaggeration—let alone a repeat of the horrors of Sudetenland. If anything, it is the old 19th-century struggle involving unending tensions in the eternally disputed lands between Russia and Europe and the always unanswered question of where Europe ends, whether Russia is part of it and in whose sphere the regions and the lands in between should lie.
But there is a huge difference. In the 21st century, conditions internationally have totally changed. The world is now hyper-connected at every level, from schoolchildren in their schools, to universities, to business, to science, to major corporations and every conceivable interest in between. We are wound together in ways that not even some of our policymakers have fully grasped. Even in the past five years there has been a total transformation of the international landscape and huge shifts of power, with which some people in Moscow, and perhaps some even in the West, seem not to have caught up.
Of course there should be no appeasement of rough methods and treaty breaches, but nor should there be any hysteria. I have in mind the primitive outpourings in the New York Times and the ridiculous over-the-top piece in yesterday’s Financial Times saying that this was going to be the end of democracy in our time. Nor should we be driven by demands on the White House to show more machismo—“See off the Russkies”, and so on—and we certainly should not buy into the “weak Obama” story being spread about, although I must say that I think he made a huge mistake yesterday in using the word “never” about Crimea’s changing status. Rule 1 is never to use the word “never”. When I hear speeches of the sabre-rattling kind, I share the view of Bismarck, who said:
“The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing”.
He went on to say:
“The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia”.
But of course he was sacked after that.
I believe that we should view the current crisis in two perspectives, which are not totally separate but which comprise two distinct areas. For the medium term, I fully support making Vladimir Putin and the cronies in his circle count the full and very painful cost of trying to use force in the rest of Ukraine, should they be so stupid as to do so. Not only will force not work in an age of street empowerment, as former President Yanukovych found out all too rapidly, but it will ruin Russia even while it certainly will hurt us as well. My noble friend Lady Warsi rightly referred to that.
However, our leverage is far greater in the medium term than many people realise. The financial screws can bring down the weak Russian financial system, while the vital gas and oil revenues, on which the whole of Putin’s Russia and certainly his inner clique float, can be drained away in due course. That is his jugular vein. Russia today is living on the hopes of high gas and oil prices; I believe that the budget can be balanced if the price is $119 a barrel. That can easily be undermined and removed. It could take time, because of course the idea that USA shale gas can come to the immediate rescue is a fantasy. It has been a fantastic story—shale gas provided 3% of US needs four years ago and provides 30% to 35% today—but just at the moment US gas inventories are extremely low and the gas export terminals are not yet completed.
None the less, gradually and in due course Europe can live without Russian gas, or it will acquire the customer power to beat down the price substantially, thus removing Gazprom’s monopoly position in the central European customer countries—as long as it is not stopped by misplaced green zealotry, which of course could undermine even that. Piped gas can come from Norway and from Azerbaijan in the Caspian region, while LNG can come from just about everywhere in growing quantities. Eventually, shale gas will indeed change everything, as I kept warning my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during my time there, but it will not be tomorrow. That is the medium term, where we are actually in a very strong position. We should have the confidence to develop it and set it out quite clearly to Mr Putin and his advisers.
It is on the immediate Crimean vote where we really need a sense of proportion and a lot of creative diplomacy. To let the Crimean situation escalate into an East-West military confrontation with total Russian isolation—if that was possible, which in fact it is not—would be to abort world recovery and to create massive worldwide suffering and probably political turmoil all round, on an impossible scale. To say that there should, instead, be a search for a deal is not appeasement; it is common sense. If there is to be a search for a deal, it should include urging Russia to wait until there is a fully elected Government in Kiev—Russia of course completely rejects the current interim Government—before rushing to complete the 100% annexation of Crimea, although it looks very late in the day from Mr Putin’s speech this morning, and to work with and talk to the new Government in Kiev when they are elected.
Ironically, taking Crimea away from Ukraine makes a Europe-inclined Government much more likely. This is a curious twist of the situation, because it would return a majority in favour of those looking west rather than east. In exchange, there could be a lifting of the targeted sanctions that we have now put in place and joint agreement in the proposed contact group, which both sides have agreed on, to work for Ukraine’s economic recovery. That will be extremely expensive, because it is bankrupt, and will only work if both sides co-operate. The final part of any package could be the re-inclusion of Russia in the G8. We should remember that Ukraine is extremely rich in all kinds of resources including, ironically, vast resources of shale gas.
It is not beyond the wit of diplomats to find an interim status for Crimea as an independent entity, as some Crimean leaders themselves have suggested. It would be a superficially independent little nation, like many others that have sprung up in recent years. However, of course, while they talk about independence, they are all in fact completely interdependent in practice, as all small nations have to be nowadays and as Scotland would soon discover if it voted for the independence illusion—it no longer in practice exists.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am listening carefully to the possible package that he is outlining, which might be the basis for some agreement over Crimea. Some solution must of course at some point be achieved. Does he agree that an essential part of such a package is that if we recognise the right of Crimea to exercise self-determination and join Russia if it wishes to do so—if the procedures are democratic and so forth—equally the right of the people of the rest of Ukraine to self-determination should also be respected? If they choose in due time to join the European Union and NATO, they should be allowed to do so and that should be recognised by Russia.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I think that those would be the unfolding ideals. It is in the interests of Russia—although I am not sure that it fully understands this—to have a stable Ukraine that is confident and able to resolve its internal differences, with the Russian-speaking part and the Ukrainian-speaking part living together. However, even that is a ridiculous division, because many Ukrainian people speak Russian and many Russian people speak Ukrainian. Until recently—until the tensions rose and there was this polarisation—no one cared a damn what language they spoke in Ukraine. It is possible for these people to live together.
The kind of evolution for Crimea that I am talking about is possible. However, the fact is that the Crimean referendum has happened, with 96% or whatever it was voting in favour, and the previous unstable status quo cannot be magically restored. I agree that there is indeed a generalised separatist movement going on all round the world, which noble Lords have already referred to. It is not just in Russia—Nagorno-Karabakh is stirring again, we hear what they are saying down in Catalonia and we know what is being said on our own island in Scotland. However, this has more to do with local digital empowerment, which is growing everywhere, than specifically with Russian imperialism.
Eventually, if we keep our minds on the true goals and interests of this country, it should be clear that it is completely in our interests to have a prosperous, open, connected and stable Russia. Russia cannot just eventually become a pariah nation, if its rulers want to survive and be part of, for instance, the World Trade Organisation, as they are, and the global economic system.
Finally, some other lessons have emerged from this. First, the European Union collectively—and we can provide some help from London—should rethink the style of its approach to neighbouring states. The EU, as much as Russia, has, I am afraid, helped to polarise a nation that could have lived together and could still live together, with the language issues being put back in the box as being largely irrelevant.
Secondly, with most countries and peoples continuously connected nowadays with an intensity never before experienced in history, with the electronic empowerment of all kinds of groups, official and unofficial, and the consequent fragmentation in the whole pattern of state power in country after country, and with the rising influence and economic weight of the non-western world—the “rise of the rest”—the whole behaviour pattern of international affairs has started to shift. For America, as much as for Europe, and the UK within Europe, if we want to prosper in these new conditions it is time to shift our attitudes as well. Force and coercion alone can no longer settle borders, crush minorities or deliver clear-cut victories, as we have bitterly discovered in many theatres in recent times. Softer and smarter methods have to be deployed, and the sooner that is grasped in Moscow, Washington and, indeed, Brussels, the better.
Lord Soley (Lab)
I fear I start from a rather more depressing position than many Members of this House. I agree with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. There is a lot in what he said and I think that there was mishandling by the European Union and NATO of a number of the east European states.
I start from the position of trying to understand the Russian position. I have spent some time not only reading the speeches and comments of President Putin, which are liberally sent to me by the embassy—for which, many thanks—but I have talked to the Russian ambassador, who is a very civilised and thoughtful man. If you look at what President Putin has been saying and doing, you recognise that there is a pattern to that behaviour which is trying to reassert control over areas of which he has lost control.
I can understand that in historical terms. Russia did lose out when the Soviet Union collapsed. More importantly, although Russia has a proud history in terms of what it has achieved scientifically, culturally and in other ways, it had a truly tragic history in the 20th century: two world wars, a revolution that failed disastrously and led to millions of people dying from famine or being uprooted and deported, and of course the gulags and all that followed from that. It is a tragic history and Russians feel it very strongly. They feel equally strongly that Ukraine not only should be under their influence but needs to be because of the “fascist threat”, as they play that card. President Putin plays it but many Russians believe it, and the reason they believe it is not hard to find: a lot of Ukrainians fought for the Nazis and were particularly brutal. The reverse is also true: many Ukrainians fought for the Communists and Stalin and were also very brutal. The whole of Ukraine was brutalised throughout the Second World War period.
We can understand all that, but the basic line on this is that you do not just throw over international agreements that you have signed—and Russia did sign, as the noble Lord pointed out, the 1994 declaration which removed the nuclear weapons from Ukraine in return for a guarantee of its borders from the five permanent members of the Security Council: Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States. That is what Russia has broken, because it feels passionately that Crimea should be part of Russia. Actually, that could have been achieved. It would not be an unreasonable thing to develop.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Could my noble friend tell me where in the Budapest memorandum it refers to a guarantee?
Lord Soley
It is a guarantee that force would not be used to change the borders of Ukraine. In return, Ukraine would give up the nuclear weapons on its territory.
In any event, even if my noble friend were right, which I do not think he is, and even if Putin were right to do what he has done, it would be disastrous, because—and I would put this very high on my list of concerns about President Putin—he plays the nationalist card. If you play the card which says, “The Russians in those territories call for my intervention to protect them”, where does that stop? The reason that people refer to Munich is not because they compare Putin to Hitler, or Russia to Nazi Germany—they do not; there is no similarity—but because there is a recognition, which plays very powerfully in the east European countries, that the Germans played the card of coming in to defend the German population and now Putin is using that argument for the Russian population, and that, once you play that card, it is very difficult to control it.
That is why I find this situation depressing. Even if President Putin says to people, “I do not want you to use the nationalist card in east Ukraine”, he has no guarantee that people will not. If they feel strongly that there is a real chance that Russia will regain the territories that it lost and that they will again come under the Russian state, which many of them would like, then you would lose control of it. We have to say, and everybody else in the world is saying, “Well, if you don’t do something about Crimea, and we didn’t do anything about Georgia and South Ossetia, then where does this stop?”. The problem is that, if you play the nationalist card, there are east European states which have real reason to be fearful, particularly the Baltic states—and they are members of NATO.
Please let us take a very hard look at this. I am not intending today to make any suggestions to the Government about the way forward. I agree that it must be a diplomatic way forward, but when people say, as they have been saying quite recently, “Nobody wants a war about this”, I simply remind them that in 1913 people were also going around saying, “Nobody wants a war”. The real danger of this situation is that someone will lose control of it. It is not controllable particularly when you play that nationalist card, so you get all sorts of unintended consequences. I understand the feelings of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours about this, but, frankly, you have to face up to the fact that, if you do not stop it somewhere, you cannot control it and it is right outside your control. We have been round this track before; it is a dangerous track.
The great thing about Russia is, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, indicated, that many things are happening there that are very encouraging and exciting. You can see it moving back towards the more open and free society that we all want it to be. But I simply say that there have been three or four occasions in the past 100-odd years when Russia was doing that and, each time, it tripped over and failed. That is its tragedy, and none of us should underestimate the strength of feeling in Russia about being surrounded and invaded, and about its own inability to be the top power.
The other thing that stands out, particularly in Putin’s comments and speeches on this, is his anger and frustration that the United States is seen as the dominant power and that he is not seen as its equal, which is why he tries to rubbish some of the west European powers such as ourselves and others and why he tries to set himself up on an equal basis with the United States. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will know, I have been saying for the past two years that you will not get Assad to the table on Syria until President Putin makes him go there. Now that we have just seen the latest military advances of Assad’s armies in Syria, you know that that is right. Putin does not have an interest in settling the Syrian dispute other than under President Assad’s control. That is another one that we have probably lost. We have probably lost Crimea, although, as I have said, you can make a case for that. The tragedy is that it would have been perfectly possible, had Russian diplomacy been up to it, to say, “Look, we want a settlement along that border area that includes Crimea coming back to Russia”. That would have had to be with guarantees for the minorities there, because if I was a Tatar or one of the others in the Crimean peninsula, I would be deeply worried.
I have just a couple of concluding remarks. First, it would be naive in the extreme to think that this will stop here. My worry is that it will continue. We need to face up to that reality. Secondly, and very importantly, the European Union must get real about a foreign policy and a defence policy. One reason we misplayed our hand in east Europe is because we did not have clear policies. I take my hat off to my noble friend Lady Ashton who did a great job on Iran and a range of other things, but we do not have in Europe a foreign policy or a proper defence policy. We still have to rely on the United States. We are in a situation now where there is a leader in Russia determined to assert his authority over the areas formerly controlled by the Soviet Union as it then was. He wants to control those and we have a weak and divided Europe. Where have we heard that before?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising sincerely to the House for my late arrival to the debate this afternoon. In particular, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister.
The debate this afternoon has illustrated just what a complex, difficult and rapidly developing issue this is. As someone who has studied, lived in and worked in Russia over many years since the late 1980s, I will limit myself this afternoon to issues surrounding the context of recent events. That context is extremely important in setting out why western rhetoric following these deeply dangerous events is not always matched by reality. Clearly, Sunday’s referendum was not legitimate. It had a heavily rigged set of questions and was carried out in a true Putin-esque spirit of “managed democracy”. None the less, the scale of the result illustrates all too clearly the problem in Crimea.
Last week, Henry Kissinger wrote an interesting article on Ukraine in the Washington Post. He stated that:
“The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins”.
Whatever our individual views about what is happening in Ukraine, I believe all noble Lords agree that we want a democratic, open and liberal Ukraine. We all want to see a Ukrainian Government who allow free speech, work to fight against corruption and speak for all Ukrainians—Ukrainian and Russian speakers, Tatars, Muslims and other minorities. However, we cannot successfully achieve such a Ukraine by forcing it artificially to decide between Russia and the West. To do so risks splitting the country and aggravating even moderate Russians.
As many noble Lords have already remarked, the situation in Ukraine is highly complex. There are families of Ukrainian origin living in Russia and Russian-speaking Ukrainians living in Ukraine. After over 70 years of the Soviet Union, the two countries are inextricably linked. For many Russians—including many liberal, anti-Putin Russians—Ukraine is not just any other neighbouring country. As several noble Lords have already remarked today, Kievan Rus is at the heart of Russian history. We should recall that Crimea was Russian as recently as 1954—in the lifetime of many Russians and Ukrainians. There remain many emotional and family ties, as well as, of course, the Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol.
One of the side effects of the end of the Cold War is that fewer people have studied Russia, its language, politics and history. It has been seen as less of a priority. As we have seen more and more Russians shopping in Bond Street and buying properties in Hampstead, we have tended to assume that it was all “getting better over there”. Sadly, the EU’s eastern dimension policy has not been as united or successful as it should have been. Our approach has been overly based on bilateral financial and energy deals rather than achieving a successful, united and holistic approach to Russia and its near neighbours. In particular, we have failed to deal effectively with the increasingly authoritarian Mr Putin with one clear and united voice. He has carefully exploited those divisions. We have such great financial, economic and, especially, energy interests with Russia that all too often over the past decade we have turned a convenient blind eye to some of Mr Putin’s increasingly authoritarian behaviour.
The situation in Ukraine is undoubtedly complex, but it is in the West’s best interest to have a stable, democratic Ukraine. That should not involve it having to become either Moscow’s or the West’s buffer zone against the other side. Ukraine must not become an excuse for hawks on either side to reignite the Cold War. Indeed, Ukraine could serve as an effective bridge from western Europe to Russia.
I believe that some errors were made in the early stages of this crisis. As a result, there is a risk of increasingly dangerous extremism on both sides of the political divide in Ukraine. For example, it was deeply insensitive and unwise of the interim Ukrainian Government to demote the Russian language immediately after taking power. From the start, they should have emphasised that they sought to represent all Ukrainians, including Russian speakers, Tatars and other minorities. That policy has now been reversed, but the damage has already been done in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It has provided Mr Putin with the excuse that he needed.
Moscow, for its part, has clearly breached international law through trying to annex Crimea. Mr Putin has used the mostly non-existent threat against Russian speakers in Ukraine as an excuse for his actions. There can be little doubt that in the short term, this has given a boost to popularity back at home, although it should be noted—as my noble friend Lord Chidgey already has—that liberals, particularly Yabloko, in both Moscow and St Petersburg have expressed deep concern at Mr Putin’s response. Accepting the transfer of Crimea to Russia would set a very dangerous precedent—not least for the countries of the former Soviet Union and, in particular, Moldova.
I believe that we should concentrate all diplomatic efforts now on getting all parties, including Russia, focused on electing a democratically legitimate Government in Kiev on 25 May. Those elections must proceed on that date as agreed and they must be fair, free and properly and fully observed. Any attempts to postpone those elections should be resisted. Ukraine must be allowed to decide its own future. Work should also continue on providing economic assistance and support to fighting the, sadly, currently endemic levels of corruption and promoting judicial, political and economic reform in Ukraine.
There is no doubt that these will be challenging weeks ahead but when we look at how we want this policy to end we have to ensure that, at the end of this process, Moscow understands that if it wants to be a respected player on the world stage it has to put its Cold War-style behaviour in the past where it belongs. The EU, for its part, should work to build a genuinely coherent eastern dimension policy, one which works to improve democracy and could serve as a bridge from the EU to Russia and beyond.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow a speaker who has much long experience in Moscow. I well remember the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the threats that were made in the last years of the old Soviet Union to what have now become the Baltic states. Nevertheless, in today’s situation, I suggest that we need to be calm and firm. We should work to prevent ill judged adventures which could have very serious consequences.
Ukraine is no banana republic, but rather a country with a population estimated in 2012 to exceed 45 million. It has, alas, suffered poor leadership and much corruption. Looking from the Russian point of view, one can understand their historic connection with Kievan Rus and with the adoption of the Christian faith. The victory at Poltava in Ukraine in the early 18th century marked the end of a major threat from Sweden. Today, many Russians have a strong sense of the near abroad and value having a base at Sevastopol for their Black Sea fleet. None of that, however, justifies attempts to dictate to their nearest neighbour, which has a clear idea of its own identity and, indeed, sought to establish independence between 1917 and 1920. As the noble Lords, Lord Chidgey and Lord Soley, have already mentioned, in 1994 the Budapest memorandum gave Ukraine full recognition and guaranteed its independence. In return, Ukraine gave up any ambition to be armed with nuclear weapons and indeed surrendered its Soviet arsenal. Three years earlier, Crimea had become an autonomous republic within Ukraine. In 2005, that autonomy was modified to provide a permanent share of power for the distinctive Crimean Tatars, who had suffered so heavily under Stalin.
In the present situation, I suggest that we have to find ways for Russia to come back from rash adventures and leave aside any coercion while avoiding loss of face. I believe that the OSCE provides the ideal mechanism. This organisation and its companion, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, stem from the Helsinki agreements of the mid-1970s. It is an intergovernmental body but not a military organisation. It is worth noting that its membership is far larger than that of the European Union. In the past the OSCE did good work in the Baltic states where, as we know, there are sizeable Russian minorities. It tried hard over many years after the civil war in Moldova, where alas things were not helped by having too many mediators.
What was shown in that case, however, was that a mediated peace process was fully compatible with a simultaneous analytical conflict-resolution process. The same combination could happen again in today’s circumstances—if possible, before they become too embittered. NGOs and local government could also help to implement any new agreements that could be reached. The OSCE has the great advantage that it already has observers on the ground in Ukraine, though they have not been allowed to enter Crimea. Seventeen member states are taking part in the monitoring mission. It is also fortunate that the current chairman-in-office of the OSCE is Swiss. I am glad to learn that he has already spoken directly with President Putin.
What would be an acceptable result? First, there should be a democratic Ukraine, able to negotiate its own relations with Russia and the EU. This might include special arrangements: for example, on dual nationality for Russian people in the eastern provinces, as indeed happens in Northern Ireland, and for the Russian language. Secondly, Crimea should be enabled to determine its own future, whether that might be independence or an agreed linkage with either Russia or Ukraine. A velvet divorce, on the lines of the agreed separation of the Czech and Slovak republics, would be a possible way forward. This is something quite different and distinct from the rushed referendum of last Sunday. It is essential to have sufficient time for any popular consultation. The issues must be fully explained, while the voters need time for thought before giving a considered verdict. All military or paramilitary pressure should be excluded. Independent observers should verify the process before, during and after the voting.
There are two well known principles in international law: the territorial integrity of states and the right to self-determination of peoples. Quite often those principles conflict and the art is to reconcile them without resort to violence. Here, religious leaders and other people of good will can help the politicians. Above all, the OSCE holds the key to the peaceful resolution of problems involving national identity and country.
I am a direct descendant of someone who survived the charge of the Light Brigade. That was not a good way to solve things. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that the Geneva declaration of 2006, which was signed by 42 states, is still relevant? It argued against armed violence and on behalf of human security. In that spirit, will the Government use their best efforts to achieve agreed political solutions?
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is not a relation of the sergeant who got back at the end of the charge of the Light Brigade and asked his commanding officer, “Same again, Sir?”.
I shall be very brief. The West’s response to the outrageous annexation of Crimea by Russia has been twofold. The first has been to suggest—in fact now, to implement—some punishments, including the removal of trade in certain goods and today we have had mention of the closing down of some negotiations that have been going on on military matters between the West and the former Soviet Union. Secondly, there has been the call for more negotiations. I shall spend a bit of time on the negotiations point without further ado.
However, I want to mention one anecdote about the punishments. I was in Saint Petersburg two or three months ago, and I bumped into a British admiral who was rather irate, which admirals are allowed to be. I discovered why he was irate. He was the commander of the NATO naval force and was there with other NATO officers to negotiate a deal on British and NATO help with saving submarines, because the Russians had that disaster a few years before and we have the technology to help with saving submarines. On his arrival that day, he had been called by, I think, Putin’s office, but certainly by a very high person in the Russian Government, to say that the meeting was off. I am not quite sure who was punishing whom at that point because it was Putin’s office that closed down that negotiation. I pass that on as an anecdote.
On negotiations, clearly it is true that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but what the noble Lord, Lord Solely, said is also true: unless it is done very sensitively and astutely, it could simply open up a Pandora’s box of further Russian activity. It is true that one does not have to believe in “peace in our time” to know that negotiations can be dangerous. If one is always on the back foot in negotiations and is always responding to the other side in a negative way, it can look defeatist and send wrong signals to rogue states, such as North Korea, Iran and so on. So there is a problem here.
I shall suggest one way in which we can overcome these problems and the difficulties we have in negotiations. Clearly, if we are going to negotiate, we want to do it properly. There are two principles in negotiation that need to be stuck with. The first is that we must be realistic. We have to accept that certain countries are within the Russian sphere of influence, and Ukraine is one of those countries. It is a buffer between the West and the East. We cannot describe it any other way. It is a divided country, and Crimea, as has already been said in this debate, has on the whole been part of Russia. These are facts of life that we have to accept in any negotiations. We have to be realistic.
The second, and much the most important, point is that we have to be on the front foot in these negotiations. We cannot just respond to other people’s actions and proposals; we have to have our own proposals. This is extremely important, because otherwise we will always be on the back foot and will be defeatist and retreating backwards from other people’s propositions.
One of the really interesting things about the debate so far is that a number of proposals have come forward. There is my noble friend Lord Howell’s proposal for a democratic and stable Government in Kiev. There is another proposal for trying to get some stability in Crimea. My own view, for what it is worth, is that we will have to have a much more devolved Ukraine. I cannot see how the present Ukraine can carry on in a stable way. It has got to be more devolved and possibly even split. The West is going to have to take a view about this. It will be terribly important for those Governments to have a view in order to sit down and negotiate. We cannot just go in hoping for something to come out of the negotiations and retreat backwards the whole time in the way that has largely been the case up to now.
I say strongly to our Front Bench that it must work out what we want out of these negotiations. There have been all sorts of suggestions coming out of this debate, which has been very fruitful. I hope that the Government will start taking up some of these views and coming forward with their own propositions in these negotiations so that we are not on the back foot, looking defeatist and having the kind of repercussions that the noble Lord, Lord Solely, wisely warned the House could come about.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the State Duma in Moscow has just cancelled a delegation from our All-Party Parliamentary Russia Group a month from now. It so happens that I chaired the previous meeting here. Before we started the agenda, the formidable lady chair of the Duma asked me point blank, “Do you think we are a European country?”. I thought for a second and said, “Well, of course: Chekov, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Shostakovich, Stravinsky”—you know, just to show how cultured I was. However, I wondered whether I should add, “Actually, no, you are not. Why are all eight of you from the United Russia party? You are not a normal European country, because we have multi-party democracy”.
The schizophrenia in Russia is very general. Putin himself wants to be acknowledged on the world stage, such as at the G8—the Olympics is an example par excellence—and not to be a pariah. There are multi- national economic facts of life—energy, whatever—and the huge role of shipping across the northern sea route from the Far East to Europe, et cetera. That internationalism is in sharp antithesis to the other half of his brain, which is demotic nationalism.
We have to try. Somebody mentioned having regard to people’s sensitivities. That is a very wise thing to say. A number of the points of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, have great validity. Some other key points and perspectives had certainly not been made until the debate got under way. It is time to try to be constructive, as many people have said; it might sound facile. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked, “Why not have guarantees for the Russian minority as part of the solution?”. Yes, but we both made mistakes, did we not? It was only recently that the new Government did exactly the opposite on the question, which was highly provocative.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that this is not the time that Russia should be thrown out of the OSCE. The Secretary-General of the United Nations could not chair a meeting at the moment because he is defending the territorial integrity of member states. However, that is highly nuanced in the case of Crimea, and I will add my two pennies on that.
I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie—I am sorry if I pronounce her name wrong. Yesterday’s proposals by the Russian Foreign Minister were rejected out of hand on the grounds that we would absolutely never accept the idea that Crimea could be either independent or part of Russia, because it must be part of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
I also very much agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who made an excellent speech. I will qualify two points from my understanding of it. I very much agreed when he said, “Never use the word ‘never’”, but I will pick up the question of elections. I have now raised three times in the House the unsustainability of the constitution of Ukraine, which it has had for a long time. It is 50:50, a bit like the two sides in Northern Ireland, which I have mentioned. In that situation you cannot have elections in which the winner takes it all—51:49—and you certainly do not then arrest and imprison the leader of the Opposition on charges of treason. We do not want later this month—is it in May?—those sort of elections. The cart is being put before the horse as regards constitution-making.
On the talks in Northern Ireland, I am not saying that Dublin equals Moscow or anything but religion defines the situation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans spoke about the two types of Orthodox in the east and the west. We can also look at a bit of history. Many noble Lords have mentioned history, but I will add one point. Churchill agreed with Stalin and Roosevelt at Yalta—aptly enough—in 1945 that the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian SSRs would become members of the United Nations, but that was rather illusory until after Gorbachev, perestroika and the collapse of the USSR. However, what was done in Yalta was to shift Poland to the west, to the Oder-Neisse line, and to shift Ukraine’s western border to the left-hand side—to the west—which has created the exact balance which we now inherit. Galicia—which also had a Roman Catholic element, going back to the Austro-Hungarian empire—became part of Ukraine because of the shift after Yalta in 1945. We therefore have a country which I will not say is slightly artificial, as that would be a very bad thing to say. However, in historical terms, as we have historical memories, it is a relatively recent country. Perhaps that is why people are all so hypersensitive.
Crimea is in a very special position. I remember hiring a car not so long ago in Simferopol, staying in Yalta and going to Balaklava. I got to the esplanade in the middle of Sevastopol and got in a launch. I paid someone some roubles and he showed me around the Russian Black Sea fleet. Only 50 yards away is the Ukrainian Black Sea fleet. You see monuments all around for all the wars that Russia fought—three major ones in defence of Sevastopol. Tolstoy was wounded there, and much of War and Peace, in terms of what it is like to fight, is from Sevastopol in 1855. That novel is based on Sevastopol in that sense; it is almost learnt by heart, although that might be difficult, by every Russian schoolchild. The heroic defence happened not only in the 19th and early 20th century but as recently as 1941 and 1942.
In the centre of Sevastopol by the esplanade is an administrative building with a Russian flag on top of it. That has been true for a long time. As I understand it, the deal implicitly is in the treaty to have the sovereign bases, just as we have in Cyprus—that is, the naval bases in Sevastopol. But that treaty runs out in 2018, and I think that Putin has that in mind. All the Ukrainians whom we met in Kiev said, “Of course they’ll have to hand them back to Ukrainian control—we’re not going to renew that treaty”. Well, I do not need to teach anyone to suck eggs about the problem of access through the Dardanelles. Of course, Russia could build another base further along to the east, but I think that it is very committed to Sevastopol, almost as much as to the memory of Stalingrad in recent times.
Finally, I echo what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, that the Greek Orthodox missionaries first landed in Sevastopol—I think that I am picking up the point correctly—and, incidentally, brought the Cyrillic alphabet. Anyone who goes to Athens and gets the hang of the Cyrillic alphabet does not have too much problem trying to understand the road signs in Crimea, and it is true of the whole of the ex-USSR; everyone understands Cyrillic. So this history is terribly important.
What we have to do now is to put a lot of eggs in the basket of how a new constitution would actually work. We have to find a form of words that does not say “Never” about Ukraine but tries to acknowledge that there have been mistakes on both sides—and I have mentioned a couple of them. We have to find a constitutional formula where there is buy-in from both main parties in the ethnic or religious sense. I do not dissent from everything that the Government and the West are doing at the moment, but my instinctive reaction, for what it is worth—and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comment on this—is that we have to do what we can to give Putin an excuse not to do something stupid in the Donbas.
We must not be too provocative. Although people may be killed in a very tragic situation—take my analogy with Northern Ireland—it does not change what you then try to do. We must recognise the rights of the two sides to be part of a united Ukraine, even with a question mark over Crimea, and ensure that Russia comes to the table. I think that Putin is now looking for that. I may be wrong but that is my instinct.
Lord Goodhart (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on this occasion and to concentrate on Crimea. We need to study the past of Crimea as well as its recent features.
Crimea has been an important Russian district ever since the great Queen Catherine secured it in the latter half of the 18th century. In the 1860s, as we all know, a Russian army was fighting attacks by the British and French armies in Crimea. After that, Crimea remained an important part of Russia. Crimea gathered important places—think of Simferopol, Sevastopol, Balaklava and Yalta, all of them full of Russian people and often Russian buildings. Yalta was, and is, a very special city. For example, it was for several years the home of Chekhov, the greatest Russian author of his day, and was the summer home of the Russian tsars until Tsar Nicholas II and his wife and children were taken away and murdered by the Bolsheviks. In 1944, Stalin secured in Yalta a conference with Roosevelt and Churchill to plan the end of the war against the Germans. None of this was part of Ukraine. Crimea was not treated as part of Ukraine until 1960. At that time, Russia, Ukraine and Crimea were parts of the Soviet Union. It was, I believe, at that time assumed that the Soviet Union would continue to be permanently in charge of Russia and Ukraine.
It was not until some years later, in about 1992, that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Crimea remained in Ukraine. I believe that this was a mistake and that Crimea should have been made either an independent state or a section of Russia. I do not want the people of Crimea to be forced into abiding by the decisions of the inhabitants of the rest of Ukraine because they are very different. That being so, I believe that we should not do anything to restore Crimea to membership of Ukraine. The Crimean people should not be forced back into Ukraine. Crimea and Ukraine are different and should be recognised as separate places. I agree that there should continue to be Ukraine areas, except in Crimea. The majority of Ukraine and the majority of the citizens of Crimea should be kept separate. If that happens, things will go better, as they should. What we have seen in the past few weeks is very serious and we have to be careful about how we handle it. We need to recognise that what is done now in Ukraine is not necessarily the same as what should be done in Crimea.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goodhart makes his points persuasively and briefly, and I do not disagree with much of what he said. However, at the same time, no one can condone the manner in which recent events have been conducted by the Government of Russia.
Nevertheless, I would like to set my remarks in a personal context, if your Lordships will forgive me. I sit here on this Bench every day and look up at the Barons of Magna Carta—we will be celebrating them next year—and I think of how long it took from 1215 for us in this country to have a fully-fledged democracy. I also look up at the armorial bearings on one of those windows, on which the words, “Be mindful”, stand out. We need to be mindful of the history of the post-war world.
When I was first elected to the other place in 1970, the Soviet Union was a tyranny that dominated the whole of eastern Europe. I well remember my noble friend Lord Janner of Braunstone—I deliberately call him my noble friend—coming to me and persuading me to take on the chairmanship of the campaign for the release of Soviet Jewry. We worked hard, sometimes unavailingly, for those people who did at least have a door marked “Exit” if they could be given a visa to get out. I remember an instance when my noble friend and I tried to send a prayer book to a young man who was celebrating his bar mitzvah. We had it signed by Mr Wilson—as he then was—Prime Minister Heath, and some 300 Members of the House of Commons. It came back; not only was it not admitted, not only did the young man then know nothing about it, but my noble friend Lord Janner and I, and the other members of the committee, including my noble friend Lord Dykes, were not allowed to have visas to go to the Soviet Union. We were emphatically personae non gratae.
I had the great privilege, 20 years later, of taking part in an Epiphany communion service conducted by Father Ted Hesburgh, who had been the chairman of President Kennedy’s Civil Rights Commission, in the hotel in the Kremlin which had always previously been given over to visiting Soviet-bloc country delegations —Prime Ministers of East Germany and so on. During that visit, Mr Gorbachev’s chef de cabinet received from us a Bible that was symbolic of a million that he had agreed to accept to be distributed around the Soviet Union.
I relate those two separate anecdotes to show the progress that was made while it was still the Soviet Union after the coming to power of Mr Gorbachev—the man with whom Mrs Thatcher famously said she could do business, and did. There is no democratic infrastructure or democratic history of what we now call Russia. The Soviet Union was of course dismembered within a couple of years of our giving those Bibles. A superpower ceased to be and the Russian Federation was created. The Baltic states, Poland and Hungary—it was the situation in Hungary in 1956 that brought me into politics—all became independent nations and Czechoslovakia then split into two.
That was extraordinary progress and it had one effect in Russia. People who had been part of a superpower no longer felt themselves to be part of a great nation. We have to recognise that, for all his recent behaviour, Mr Putin gave back to the people of Russia a degree of self-respect. That is something that we should not set aside. I am not here to act as an apologist for Mr Putin or to justify the way in which recent events have been conducted, but I would say to your Lordships that we in the West, for all our tradition of developing democracy, have not always got it right. We have done things internationally, even in recent years, which have been questioned, and we should bear that in mind. We also have to bear in mind that a peaceful and prosperous Russia is essential to a peaceful and stable Europe. We must also remember that in recent history—I go back no more than a couple of hundred years—the concept of the sphere of influence has been recognised in international diplomacy. One has only to think of the famous Monroe doctrine of 1823.
It is against that sort of background that we should be careful. I am not saying that we should not apply certain sanctions but I am saying that, frankly, we have got off on the wrong foot here. We could have seen this coming—as a lot of us did—and a message should have been conveyed that it was crucial that the sovereign independence of Ukraine should be recognised, but it should also be acknowledged that Russia had its own legitimate interests in that part of the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, in a very perceptive, persuasive and interesting speech, referred to the tragedy of Russian history. You have only to go to Moscow and see the monuments to where the German tanks were stopped to realise what the Russians went through. Yes, of course, they inflicted terrible things on others afterwards, for which they were rightly condemned, and we all rejoiced when the ghastly Berlin Wall came down and when the nations that I mentioned became free. I said a moment ago that it was Hungary in 1956 that brought me into politics, and it was. I shall never forget the issue of Picture Post which had on its cover the words “Cry Hungary!”. It was full of terrible photographs of what the phosphorus shells fired into Budapest by the Russians had done. We all remember what happened to Imre Nagy, the brave man who tried to stand up, just as we remember—and I had the privilege of meeting him—Alexander Dubcek, who 12 years later in Czechoslovakia tried to stand up.
Much progress has been made since then. We have, for all its imperfections, a free Europe. Many of the countries that were subjected to Soviet domination and tyranny are now members of the European Union—which is why I rejoice at the Union and will fight and fight to keep it—and most are members of NATO. I understand why there is a certain degree of concern and diffidence about seeing Ukraine become a member of the European Union and of NATO. Although I would like to see it allied to both, we have to recognise that it is not just a simple matter. Most of all, we have to recognise that we have a duty not to escalate the situation. We have a great responsibility resting on us for what we say in this Chamber today. I would hate to think that anything said here today encouraged a mindless bellicosity that could be only inimical to true freedom, peace and stability afterwards.
Yes, there has to be mutual recognition. I hope that there can be a pause, that the elections on 25 May can be properly supervised, and that the Government elected—it is only an interim Government at the moment—in Ukraine will be fully recognised. I hope also that there will be a role for Ban Ki-moon. We pay lip service—very often, it is only lip service—to the United Nations but if ever there was a case for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to seek to call together those who are at odds, this is it.
We must be under no delusions. The Baltic states are members of NATO. An attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all members of NATO. History does not repeat itself but it teaches us lessons and we should be mindful of what happened 100 years ago when people did not want to go to war. For corroboration of that, one should read Professor Margaret MacMillan’s recently published brilliant book, The War that Ended Peace. Although it sounds unthinkable, it is not utterly impossible that we could drift into a situation where the brinkmanship that took us almost to war in 1962 over Cuba could place us in a very parlous position.
I beg my noble friends on the Front Bench and, through them, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to do everything possible to establish a constructive dialogue and to recognise that the world cannot be a safe and secure place if there is continuing animosity and even cold hostility, as there was during the Cold War, between Russia and the nations of the West. To connive, however unwittingly, in the creation of that sort of situation in a world that is going to be increasingly dominated by the great power blocs of China and India as the 21st century progresses would be a disservice to our own continent and nation, and to the civilisation of which I hope we are all proud to be members.
There should be firmness but also caution and calmness. Let us remember that Mr Putin, for all his faults—we all have plenty of those—is not the devil incarnate. We must not strive to try to make him appear an isolated figure who becomes the devil incarnate.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I begin with a tribute to the speech made by the Minister, which I found extremely informative. I thank her for maintaining her tradition of keeping the House well informed as this crisis develops. I also agree with many of the things she said, particularly what she said about the role of the Prime Minister at the European Council 10 days ago. The constructive role he played was greatly appreciated, particularly in Poland.
I cannot claim any particular expertise on Ukraine. It is a very long time since I lived in Russia. I lived in Moscow many years before the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, lived in Russia and probably many years before she was anything more than a gleam in her father’s eye, but I knew Kiev and Crimea quite well back in the 1960s. I know Kiev a little more recently, but there are many noble Lords in the House with more expertise than me. I will therefore approach the issue by trying to devise some principles.
The first principle that I think the British Government are acting on—it is very important to keep it in mind—is that the aim of policy should not be to punish Russia but to help Ukraine. Although helping Ukraine does of course mean direct support and assistance, it also means deterring Russia from continuing down its present course. I do not think that that amounts to reckless bellicosity. Provided we ensure that all our policies are designed to assist Ukraine, we will not go far wrong.
There are three traps that policy needs to avoid, and I think British government policy is avoiding them. The first is the pipeline heresy, which was well exploded in an excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Pipelines mean that one has tied suppliers. The Russians, by choosing to invest in pipelines rather than LNG, have ensured that we have leverage over them. In the medium term, we, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, can buy more Norwegian or Algerian pipeline gas. We can get LNG that is freely available, at a price that will go down, from Nigeria and the Gulf because there is no market in America any more thanks to fracking. If Gazprom cannot sell its gas to us, it cannot sell it anywhere because it has no other market to supply, so Europe has no need to cringe because of its energy deficit.
It must of course work to correct that energy deficit: the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right again. To some extent, it has done so, compared with the 2008 crisis. Slovakia, Hungary and Poland are less exposed now than they were because the pipelines previously flowed in only one direction and they now have reverse flow from west to east. We need be less inhibited than we were at the time of the Georgia crisis in 2008.
In the long term, there is no doubt that fracking means that the United States will be exporting LNG. There is clearly a need for many more gasification plants. It is particularly astonishing that Germany does not have one yet. However, in the medium term this is not a big problem, and in the short term we have had a warm winter in Europe and stocks are high.
Coal is phenomenally cheap because Appalachian coal has been driven out of the American power generation market by natural gas. Therefore, it can underprice Russian coal. Forty per cent of coal in this country still comes from Russia, but it does not have to. We could, if we wanted, reopen those contracts. I am not saying that we should do these things: my point is simply that the pipeline heresy is a heresy. We do not need to feel that Gazprom controls the EU’s policy.
The second heresy is to believe that EU sanctions set a ceiling on what we, the French, the Germans or the Poles could do or threaten to do to help Kiev. They do not set a ceiling; they set a floor. A convoy does not need to move at the speed of the slowest ship and only as far as that ship will go. There is an argument that the UK and France should think about going further and faster because we are signatories to the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which has been described and discussed already. However, I will make the point that in 1994, Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal was the third largest in the world. It was bigger than those of the next three, the French, the British and the Chinese, put together. All that was removed as a result of the Budapest memorandum, so I do not think that our policy in the present crisis should be determined only by the need to support and help our friends in Ukraine. We need also to think about how to sustain the policy we have had for many years on non-proliferation. It will be harder to persuade the near-nuclear powers not to go for warhead and missile development and weaponisation in the future if it is seen that the guarantees that the Ukrainians certainly think they got in 1994 are worth nothing.
The third heresy is the shoulder shrug which says that Ukraine is a basket case and nothing can be done. Ukraine is still the world’s second largest grain exporter. The country is phenomenally rich in minerals and in largely unexploited hydrocarbons. It is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, also said, natural fracking country. No one is doing it yet because no one invests in Ukraine. That is because Ukraine has had the bad luck to have five successive corrupt kleptocracies. Twenty years ago, the per capita wealth of Ukraine was on a par with that of Poland. Today, Poland’s per capita income is four times that of Ukraine. It is a rich country that has been very badly governed, and of course it is bankrupt. Some 30% of its budget is spent on debt service, so no wonder it cannot pay its bills. However, with a good Government that could change very quickly, which would be in everyone’s interest, including Russia’s.
What should we do? I have four thoughts about this. First, it is obvious that generous emergency aid should be made available now. It should come from the IMF, the EU and bilaterally from the Americans. I see that there is a Bill in Congress for $1 billion; I hope it gets through. That is needed to get the country through the six months that will see the parliamentary and presidential elections, the new constitution and a new Government. In my view, we are talking not only about capital aid—much of which can be loan money because we are lending to a country that is potentially rich and will repay—but about technical assistance, particularly in the area of juridical, legal and constitutional reform on issues of governance, where I think there is a particular role for this country to play.
Secondly, the Russians must be deterred from disrupting the six-month process that the Ukrainians have set themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, Kiev must continue to be statesmanlike and conciliatory about language laws and minority rights, and not make the terrible mistake that arose briefly on the language laws. The world’s eyes and ears need to be on Donetsk, Kharkiv and Odessa. It was easy for the Russians to create facts on the ground in Crimea because the world was not watching and the OSCE monitors were not let in. The Kiev Government want them in now, so we, the EU, the OSCE and all those who are concerned for the future of Ukraine should be responding to that. We need observers on the ground to make sure that false facts are not created.
Thirdly, there is a need for a dialogue with Moscow about whether its current zero-sum game approach, as shown in Putin’s speech today, is really in its interests. I strongly believe that, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, a prosperous Ukraine is in the Russians’ interest. I do not think it is in their interest that their near-abroad—the Kazakhstans, Turkmenistans, Azerbaijans, Armenias, Georgias and Moldovas—should see Moscow as threatening and overbearing. However, that is how Moscow is seen today as a result of what has just happened in Crimea, particularly in the Muslim republics. The reactions of the Tatars in Crimea were predictable, and their fate is of concern to their coreligionists.
The Russians also need their EU markets, so the points I made earlier about sanctions are relevant. They need the inward investment that their action in Crimea will certainly now deter. We need to encourage them not to believe their own propaganda: Ukraine is not about to join NATO and the US is not about to deploy missiles on the Russian border. In fact, NATO membership is not on offer and has not been on offer for a considerable time. It was US policy for a time to offer it, but the European allies did not agree. As far as I know, no British Government have agreed, and it is not British policy now that Ukraine should be invited to join NATO—I hope the Minister will confirm that. The Russians maintain that it is. It would be a great pity if it was, and it would be a mistaken policy, for reasons that have been mentioned in this debate. However, I do not think it is the case, and that needs to be made clear.
Being slightly daring now, I should like to go a little further and make what is perhaps a more constructive suggestion. Some recent statements from Moscow, including one yesterday, seem to imply that Russia would like a status for Ukraine comparable to that achieved by Austria with the state treaty in 1955. If that were genuinely what a freely elected Ukrainian Parliament wanted—I have no idea whether it is or might be—and if the Russians would genuinely back off, as they did in Austria in 1955, and could convince Ukraine that they would respect a Ukrainian state treaty, just as Russia respected the Austrian state treaty and not as it treated the Budapest memorandum, then it seems to me that a very interesting negotiation is possible. Of course, it all hangs on what the Ukrainians want. They cannot have access to the alliance but they could have some other form of collective security guarantee, perhaps more binding than the Budapest memorandum has come to be.
Lastly, we need to remember our other friends in the region that are now feeling threatened. For Moldova, the parallel between Crimea and Transnistria is disturbingly close—the Russians have 2,000 troops on the ground in Transnistria, and the illegal referendum has already happened. It happened in Gagauzia on 2 February and, astonishingly enough, produced a majority in favour of closer links with Moscow and no move towards the European Union. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin has already warned that Moldova will lose Transnistria if it continues to move towards the EU. So far, Moldova’s nerve holds, but where are our observers? Where is our presence on the ground in Moldova?
What about the Baltic states? When they suffered, in 1940, precisely the same fate that has now befallen Crimea, the United Kingdom, greatly to its credit, never recognised their incorporation into the USSR. Most other countries did, but we have never recognised it. We maintained the embassies of the three independent republics in London right through until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now they are our allies and are in NATO. They have a deep bond with this country because we did not let them down the way everybody else did. It is really quite important that we should be seen to be standing by them again lest President Putin mistakenly think that Article 5 of the Washington treaty is a dead letter. Foreign Minister Steinmeier was in the three Baltic capitals 10 days ago. I hope that we will follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke of the Monroe doctrine. Alas, the Brezhnev doctrine is probably more relevant. I do not like it at all. I do not believe in spheres of influence. I do believe that democracy and self-determination must take precedence. That is why I think our policy should rest on the central pivot of: what can we do to help Kiev and others who currently feel threatened?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by recording my interest as a three-time election observer in Ukraine, as well as visiting on a number of occasions and heading up a programme run by the European Parliament Former Members Association called EP to Campus, which sends former Members to universities. We have sent quite a few to universities in Ukraine, particularly in Kiev and Donetsk.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is not in his place. I reflected at one point that sometimes pleasant consequences come out of tragic situations. If the Conservative group ended up in the EPP, I would regard that as being an extremely good solution to us not having anywhere to go at the moment, but we will see about that in due course.
As I mentioned, I have visited Ukraine, including Crimea, on many occasions. It has always been very clear to me that there have always been huge tensions within the different communities in Ukraine and Crimea. Seven or eight years ago in Crimea, when I spoke to Crimean parliamentarians in the autonomous parliament, a number of them, even at that time, expressed great regret that they were in Ukraine at all. The idea of joining Russia has not come up in the past few months; it has simmered away ever since, as one parliamentarian put it to me, the unexpected and somewhat cavalier act of Nikita Khrushchev in removing Crimea from Russia.
What we have to look at going forward, without in any way accepting last Sunday’s referendum as being fair, rational or giving proper opportunities for debate, is a way for the people of Ukraine to express a preference for where they want to be. We must also realise that we have our press in this country but my son, who is living in Moscow at the moment, describes it as Russia trying to stir up tensions in order to create a pretext for further involvement in eastern Ukraine, with the Russian media operating as an anti-western, anti-Ukraine propaganda machine. In other words, they are building up the fires. But there has also been some building up of fires in Washington and in places somewhat closer to home.
The referendum was certainly not conducted in a satisfactory way, but I do not think it becomes a Parliament that is about to give an independence vote to Scotland to say that we cannot devise a formula whereby the people of Ukraine can express their preference for where they would wish their Government ultimately to be based. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, there are many possible solutions on offer. Our job is to look forward and to try to be a facilitator of those negotiations, not to be partisan but more to follow the line of recent statements by the former German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder. He said that the EU has to take some responsibility for the current situation in Ukraine because we have rather polarised it. It is either an association agreement or a customs agreement with Russia. We have to come to a solution which is somewhere in between those two. Moving forward has to be done in a both-ways scenario, as our colleague Mr Schroeder says.
I counsel us to be cautious in the way that we deal with all our relations with Russia. To the people of Russia, what happened in the 1990s was not exactly the triumph that we see here. Many people in Russia do not look on either Mr Gorbachev or Mr Yeltsin as great figures; many of them look on those two people as being less-than-perfect defenders of what they regarded as their pride and their interests. We need to keep that in mind at all times when dealing with Russia.
We also need to look at money-laundering, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. We cannot be unaware of the huge amount of eastern European money that is in London. When I think of my late mother-in-law in her late 80s trudging down to the bank with her passport to show that she was not money-laundering and I then look at the huge amount of money coming into this country, into flats and property, and basically depriving Londoners of the ability to have somewhere to live, I wonder whether we are concentrating on the wrong end of that particular spectrum. In some people’s view—and it would not be far from mine—we have also aided the plundering of the wealth of eastern Europe, which has come in here, has done marvels for our balance of payments but has impoverished a lot of people in eastern Europe.
One final problem that I want to deal with is that of corruption in Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned, it has existed under the past five Governments, and it is sad and endemic. I have a number of people whom I would count as friends in Ukraine. Most of them are in what we could call the middle classes: they are doctors and professionals, many of them working in the public sector. The Ukraine Government know that their public servants cannot live on the wages they are paid. A Russian word which is widely used in Ukraine—I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, will forgive me, because my pronunciation is probably awful—is blagodarnost, which means a payment in gratitude; in other words, a bribe. One of my friends who is a doctor would say that she could not live on the salary paid to her by the state. She operates a public clinic for one and a half days a week, and for the other three and a half days, with the open connivance of the Ukrainian state under a variety of Governments, she accepts under-the-counter payments for priority. She runs a sort of Nuffield health service in the Ukrainian medical service. This is not unique; it is a problem which the Ukrainian authorities have got to overcome, because until they do so there will not be investment. While a judge can be bribed to deliver a corrupt decision that will take all your investment away—and there are plenty of examples of people’s investments being corruptly confiscated by court decisions—and until you can get a rule of law that guarantees the sanctity of investment, people will not invest. This is a major problem that Ukraine has to tackle, and it is a problem that goes right back to the Kuchma Government. We can say that the President just out of office, Yanukovych, was corrupt, but he was only following a long pattern. After all, Mrs Tymoshenko was known locally as the “gas queen”. This problem has to be tackled.
That is why we must have a certain amount of humility. One of the things about this debate has been the number of times that the European Union has been mentioned. If anyone believes there would be any future for Britain outside the European Union in influencing Europe, let them read through this debate. I do not think that a single noble Lord even intimated that we would have the same amount of influence outside the European Union. Let us join with our EU partners in trying to mediate between the legitimate interests of a lot of disparate players. We have a role to play as part of a wider European polity. I hope the noble Lord who replies to the debate will be able to assure us that we will fulfil that role.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister had to leave for a few minutes and just spoke to me. Even in her absence, I want to pay tribute to her opening speech, which was extremely helpful and certainly laid down the approach that the Government are understandably taking.
Many other noble Lords in this debate have pointed out that what the President of Russia is doing is at worst illegal but certainly running roughshod over the wishes of people and the security and stability of the wider region. I would not add very much to the debate if I simply repeated those kinds of sentiments. Instead, I will take a different approach but I want to make very clear in doing so that, while I seek to understand some of the mistakes that we have made in the West and some of the understandings that Mr Putin and his colleagues have in the East, I do it not in any sense to excuse what he is doing but because, if we do not understand it a little better, we may continue to make even worse misjudgments than we have done to date. I rather suspect that some noble Lords will find some of the things I say uncomfortable and maybe even disagreeable, including colleagues on my own Benches.
First, it is extremely important for us to be clear about the difference between tactics and strategy. We are debating the question of Ukraine and the particular situation with Crimea. This is about a tactic of Mr Putin’s, not a strategy. The strategy is a wider issue. I have not heard much being said—except perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Soley—about the wider approach that Mr Putin is taking and what drives him. I will come back to that in a minute.
On the tactical question of Ukraine and Crimea, we need to be very honest with ourselves. For example, when noble Lords say that it is for the people of Ukraine to decide their future democratically, it is manifestly clear that the people of Ukraine are not of one mind. The problem is that they are absolutely split down the middle, so democracy as we talk about it simply will not work. That is part of the reason we have this problem. It is not going to work, so let us not use phrases like that, which might be very reassuring in this Chamber but are meaningless in the real world outside. One of my noble friends talked about how important it is to be responsible in this Chamber because things that are said here might do damage outside. There might be some element of truth there but, frankly, I do not think many people in Russia listen to this Chamber. It has very little relevance to most of them and the way they see things. The influence it has is modest in our own country and even more modest more widely.
I heard a lot said—very sensibly, rationally and thoughtfully—about the economic issues and the energy drivers. Those are not the things that drive people in situations of conflict—otherwise we would never get into wars. In wars, everybody loses: economically, socially and in every other way. Wars do not come about because of some kind of weighing up of the calculus of economic benefit. When I listened to a number of things said about energy, trade and economic sanctions, my first thought was that that will not make any difference to Mr Putin and his colleagues because they do not make judgments on that basis. They make judgments on the basis that they believe that their great country has been humiliated and set aside by the West for a long period and they are trying—successfully —to fight back against that. That is the driver, not the economy.
The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was, as always, excellent. One thing that he pointed out was the interconnectedness of everything. He has often rightly drawn our attention to that. That makes it very difficult to make economic sanctions work, because there are always ways around them, especially if you have an enormous country and other countries, including other members of the Security Council, prepared to play ball with you.
Let us look at the attitude of Mr Putin. It is always important to know your enemy to understand what you are dealing with. When we talk about the war in Afghanistan, we think about our intervention when we were there—at least, the most recent one. Russians think of the previous Afghanistan war, the one in which we backed the mujaheddin, sending huge amounts of weapons and materiel—and backing Osama bin Laden, of course—in order to get them out, one of the last great humiliations at the end of the Cold War. I may be wrong, but I perceive that Mr Putin is riding on the back of a nationalist tiger and saying, “We’re going to put this right in various places”. I could see it in the quartet dealing with the Israel-Palestinian problem when, for all the loud talk coming from the UN, the EU and the United States about who would talk to whom, Russia was happily talking to Hamas and Hezbollah all the way through. They just ignored what the other three said.
When we came to Syria, particularly after the intervention in Libya, it was absolutely clear from the beginning that Mr Putin was saying, “This is my red line. And, by the way, I am going to stick with mine. Now let us see what you do with yours”. What did we do? We drew lines in the sand, which is very convenient because you can always draw more lines in the sand and rub the other one out with your foot. The same mistake has been made with regard to Crimea: saying that this or that will never happen. I do not think it will be much reassurance to say that we stuck to our view in regard to the Baltic states and, three generations later, they got their freedom. That will not be much reassurance either to people in the Baltics now or to anyone else who might reasonably be fearful. Why? Because now we do not make much of a difference.
I come to the European Union. I am a strong supporter of the European Union, but I remember many arguments with some of my Liberal colleagues over the question of widening or deepening the Union. In my view, you could either deepen it and make it a real political Union—at that stage, I was very keen to do that and have a Europe of the regions rather than a Europe of nation states, and I still think that it may well have been possible—or you could widen it and make it in effect a glorified free trade area. My belief was that if you tried to do both, you would make for disaster, and I think that that is what has happened. We will not talk about the economic aspects of it, but the political aspects are that we have allowed the further widening of the European Union and encouraged others to join it because we saw it as a democratisation of the east and of the south of Europe and beyond, but at the same time many of us who supported that were talking about the importance of developing a foreign and security policy and a defence posture. How on earth could that have been seen by Russia as anything other than bringing forward military, foreign and security policy closer and closer to its borders? Was it ever going to be accepted?
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but if you take the case of Serbia and Kosovo—and it is true of many countries, surely—the Copenhagen criteria and other criteria, including the economic criteria for joining the EU, have been prized and highly sought after. That is not just skin deep; that is strategic—to use the noble Lord’s word—thinking. I ask the noble Lord to reflect on this idea that widening has had no real impact and not been a proper function of the European Union. I disagreed with Jacques Delors on this very point: I believe that widening and deepening have actually gone together.
Lord Alderdice
My Lords, that is precisely the problem which I am identifying. If we try to widen it out to states that Russia sees as being within its purview and at the same time insist that what we want is not merely a trading bloc but a political union with a common foreign and security policy, and with defence implications down the line, how could Russia see that other than as more than an economic free-trade and democratic area? It could only be perceived as a threat. We are reaping some of the problems of that approach.
We are at a dangerous place if we become more aggressive and at a dangerous place if we do not. I am reminded a little of the problem that I perceive in the policy that some of my noble friends on these Benches have espoused regarding nuclear weapons. The approach that is recommended by some says, “We won’t actually send out submarines with weapons on them unless there is a threat. We’ll keep them going out and end our continuous at-sea deterrence”. So if we find a situation now where these submarines are supposedly out and there is a threat—in a few months’ time there might be a greater threat, possibly on the Baltics or possibly somewhere else—at what point do we judge that the danger is sufficient to bring them back and put in the weapons? Is it now? Is it in a month’s time? Are we already too late? If you do that, would it not increase the militarisation of a problem that we already believe we should be de-escalating? We are in a serious problem and there is no easy answer to the dilemma that we are in.
However, I am persuaded that we need to look seriously at our strategic defence posture. I do not believe that what we have at the moment, which was largely defined on budgetary issues after the last election, is serving the purpose of seriously understanding how we deal with the chaos in the wider Middle East, across the north of Africa and below it and, increasingly, in eastern Europe. These are questions which this Chamber needs to come back and explore fully and thoughtfully because they are strategic threats, which we can ignore until the time when they come back to haunt us. Some of our friends, brothers and sisters closer to Russia, are already finding the past coming back to haunt them.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I have no special knowledge of Ukraine but none the less, I felt compelled to speak in this debate. I, too, pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for introducing it so compellingly.
For someone like me, it is of great concern not to be able to pick through the propaganda war that is being perpetrated. There is the question of who to believe, given the anonymised militias and the civilian thugs we see on our televisions. There is a breakdown of trust; there is disinformation. Of course, we all would like peace and tranquillity in Ukraine but there are historical fault-lines of language and political affinities, plus of course those industrial assets, military facilities and key infrastructure—gas pipelines, for instance—which are of enormous importance to the Russian Federation. I follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: in a sense, we need to recognise this. I approach all this with a degree of humility and caution because, like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, if for different reasons, I believe that we have good reason to show humility.
I do not know how best we can help Ukraine work things out for itself, come to an internal social accord and find accommodation with Russia on the one hand and the rest of Europe on the other. Certainly immediate financial assistance is necessary, and we can perhaps particularly help by advocating the rule of law and sound economic principles, the ingredients that generate trust, commercial confidence and prosperity and which are in the end a bastion against corruption and external meddling, but these are very long-term aims. They are based on essential truths rather than short-term political fixes.
In recent weeks, we have seen on our television screens demonstrations and barricades in Kiev and elsewhere. It seemed to me that Ukrainians were to a degree united, if one can use that term, over the evils of extortion, corporate raiding, corruption and abuses by civil servants and law enforcers from the ousted President downwards, not forgetting his family and cronies. The sums are eye-watering: some $37 billion-worth of loans misappropriated and $70 billion transferred to offshore accounts in the past three years from a country of 45 million people where GDP per capita is around $3,900. This is brigandry and theft on a grand scale, perhaps matched only by the sheer vulgarity of the ousted President’s principal residence. His hurried departure, the bungled disposal of documents in the Dnieper river and their subsequent retrieval identified the further extent of the theft of state money.
I add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey and Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich on this because we now know quite a lot about the theft of state assets, in part thanks to the courage and, sadly, untimely death of Sergei Magnitsky, who has been mentioned in this House and another place on previous occasions. Noble Lords will recall that he was beaten to death in a Russian jail by the very people he had exposed. Hermitage Capital Management, which commissioned him to investigate the corruption, suffered the sequestration of its assets and subsidiaries and the fraudulent use of company identities. About two weeks ago, Hermitage’s chief executive officer, Mr William Browder, talked to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption, and I met him subsequently. Hermitage made a dossier available and has been instrumental in persuading a number of jurisdictions to take significant action against those responsible for these thefts. I cannot help thinking that that was partly responsible for the passing in late 2012 of the Magnitsky law in the United States. Other jurisdictions have followed in the seizure of assets and the freezing of accounts, but one jurisdiction appears to be notable for its apparent inaction, and it is the UK.
Despite receiving the same information in 2012, all that has been received are bland platitudes, excuses about needing to proceed carefully and about not upsetting people, and claims of taxpayer and company confidentiality. This was raised in an adjournment debate in another place in January 2012 and on 7 March 2012 the Commons unanimously approved a Motion calling for action. Later the same year, the honourable Member for Esher and Walton, Dominic Raab, raised the issues in correspondence with the same agencies that received the initial letter from Hermitage’s lawyers. Why is this? Why such inaction?
It is safe to say that UK intelligence sources must have known a great deal about what was going on and where money was coming from. Are we satisfied that none of this money somehow found its way, directly or indirectly, into UK Treasury bonds? Can the Minister tell the House what audit has been carried out into this?
My point is this: the UK is a place where it is pleasant to live, to have property, to educate children and to invest money. It is the financial capital of the world and when things hit trouble around the globe, people look to a safe jurisdiction where one might assume that the rule of law, good order and sound public administration prevail. It is not a place where one would wish suspect money to be laundered, especially when we have some of the most sophisticated anti-corruption and company laws in the world. But that is the accusation that Mr Browder is levelling against this country. He told the all-party parliamentary group that Britain has some of the most porous and least diligent supervision of any jurisdiction that he knows about. He went on to say that the UK, and London in particular, is all too often the destination for this booty. To the extent that there is knowledge but no action, that would, if true, make this country complicit in the very theft that it claims to abhor and stand against. Worse still—again, if this is true—when British businesses and individuals are pursued by our authorities for relatively minor infractions or inadvertent mistakes, one might reasonably add hypocrisy to the charge sheet.
The Magnitsky trail identified several UK-registered firms; they have been mentioned in another place and I shall not do so again. The documents recovered from the Dnieper attest to a network of UK shell companies; three, in particular are linked to the alleged Yanukovych properties in Ukraine. This information is all in the public domain. Some of the transactions may of course be innocent but the fact is that a very great deal of Ukraine’s money has gone missing and that is politically and economically destabilising.
It is obviously a matter of some considerable cost to pursue miscreants through the courts. But a cheaper approach, advocated by Mr Browder, is to name, shame and deny entry visas to those implicated and deprive them, their families and associates of rights to come to this country, where many of them like coming. The EU Council decision on freezing assets is welcome, and the detention of Dmytro Firtash is a creditable start, particularly in Austria, which does not have the greatest record of dealing with these things. The UK’s pre-eminence as a financial centre gives it a unique lever in its own right. So what are we, the UK, doing to assist Ukraine in this respect, to discover where money is going and how it can be repatriated?
I agree that seizure of assets and entry restrictions will send the right message, but only if they are targeted to suspect criminal parties, not if they are used simply to express a distaste of geopolitical adventurism, which is quite a different matter and should be clearly distinguished. Objective identification of criminality should therefore not be blunted by political considerations. There is a need for a principled stand. We should enforce corporate and financial laws consistently. This is the bedrock of trust, cohesion and stability, and a demonstration that the rule of law matters and has both social and economic value.
Finally, there are of course enormous assets that should be unearthed and returned. I would like to know what action the UK Government are taking to identify and return money stolen from the people of Ukraine.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission I will make a brief intervention at this point. I apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name on the list in the normal manner.
I start by saying that my knowledge of our relations with the Soviet Union, as it then was, and eastern Europe stems from a very short time as a junior Minister in the Foreign Office responsible for those matters—frankly, I was a very junior Minister. I was instructed by the late Sir Michael Palliser, Sir Rodric Braithwaite and Sir Christopher Mallaby—great people whom I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will know well. Sadly, my training in those matters was brought to a premature halt by the Argentinians in April 1982, which is the reason for any shortcomings that I shall no doubt now reveal.
My preference in these matters is for a diplomatic solution above all. I suggest that the sort of diplomacy that we want is not megaphone diplomacy, which we hear so often these days, not least from across the Atlantic. My noble friend Lord Carrington turned the phrase “megaphone diplomacy” in some other connection. Progress in this regard will not be easily achieved by the kind of shouting at each other that we so often hear at present. One has to have a certain sympathy with the Russian position, but no sympathy at all for any contravention of international law or the norms of international behaviour, which I fear we have witnessed in recent times.
I will make a simple suggestion to the Minister, which I hope will be a partial way forward, if that can be identified. I refer to the possibility of leasing Crimea to the Russians while the Ukrainians retain sovereignty. We have some experience of this matter. Hong Kong, of course, was leased for a 99-year period, which ended successfully and peacefully a few years ago, and we have a sort of lease for the so-called sovereign bases in Cyprus, Akrotiri and Episkopi. I do not know whether a formula of that kind could be a partial solution to the problem, but I suggest that it is worth exploring and I invite the Minister to consider it. Perhaps it has already been considered, in which case I would be happy to hear that. However, in the mean time, if we could stop shouting at each other through megaphones, that would be a way forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak in the gap.
I place on record my strong dissent from the position taken by the European Union, the British Government and the Government of the United States in their treatment of this issue. We meddle at our peril in a part of eastern Europe that we little understand.
I will clarify the position on the Budapest memorandum, which has been oft-quoted in the press and during this debate. The Budapest memorandum was determined on the basis of a need to reduce nuclear weapons deployment in eastern Europe in the early 1990s. It was never seen as a settlement of boundaries in that part of eastern Europe. It does not guarantee frontiers and it is not a treaty, but it reaffirms an obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia is perfectly entitled to challenge the territorial integrity of Ukraine as long as it does not use force and it has been so challenging since 1994. Anyone who follows the debate that has been going on over the years in eastern Europe will know that there has been a constant discussion over that matter, which is unsettled business as far as the Russians are concerned.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that force was used prior to this referendum. Yes, there has been lots of reporting of the alleged use of force, but I have not seen evidence of it. At the end of all this—no doubt there will be some kind of inquiry—I feel confident that we will find that force was not used. The use of force has not led to celebration and jubilation on the streets throughout Crimea, particularly on the back of a 96% vote on an 83% turnout. That does not suggest to me that those people have been intimidated into the way they have voted; they have simply voted for what they want, and they can now have it.
The truth is that Crimea is Russian and it is an accident of history, following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, that it has ended up in Ukraine. A historical mistake is now being corrected and in my opinion we are overreacting. We have repeatedly humiliated Russia over the past 20 years; it was particularly humiliated over the break-up of Yugoslavia. Indeed, the Russians now quote the precedent of Kosovo. They pray in aid the 2010 ruling by the International Court of Justice, when it states that international law contains,
“no prohibition on declarations of independence”.
We cannot ignore these precedents. Throughout the world, people are referring to the precedent of Kosovo. It is very interesting that, during this debate, there has been very little reference to what has happened in Kosovo. Indeed, when I intervened on the Minister at the beginning of the debate, she did not respond.
We need dialogue with the Russians, not sanctions. These sanctions will turn us into a laughing stock. It is out of dialogue that we can avoid these problems in future. The course that we are on is going nowhere and we will be humiliated when we back down.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her initial presentation and other noble Lords for their interesting contributions this afternoon.
Both Russia and the West have found themselves trapped in a position that I believe neither of them wanted to be in. The trick now is to find a way of containing the situation, de-escalating an extremely serious situation in Ukraine and sending a clear and unequivocal message to Russia that annexation in this manner is unacceptable. In this, the Government have our full support.
The question that we need to ask ourselves is how we got into this situation, and why Russia is behaving in a way that will clearly have consequences for it in the international community. Many commentators have argued that we should not be too surprised by Putin’s approach to events in Ukraine; after all, he established his political position in his 2007 Munich speech, when he called the dissolution of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. Russia is still coming to terms with the loss of the USSR—the old Russian empire, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. The potential development of a free-market, democratic Ukraine, especially one integrated into western economic and security structures, is perceived as a real threat. Many Russians have never accepted that Ukraine is truly separate from Russia.
“Ukraine is not even a state”,
Putin told George Bush in 2008. He said that part of its territories were,
“in Eastern Europe, but the greater part is gift from us”.
Russia has reacted aggressively to the demands of the Ukrainian people, who set their face against a Russian plan to develop a Eurasian union in favour of a trade relationship with the EU, effectively killing Putin’s plan for a new trade area. Russia was concerned that rapprochement with Europe would mean, ultimately, that Ukraine would join NATO, and has always been keen to maintain a buffer zone of sympathetic countries on its borders. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, that offer to join NATO was never on the table. Let us not forget that the Kremlin was also concerned about losing its military base in Crimea, and that a successful revolution on its border might encourage opposition groups within Russia itself, particularly after the protests witnessed there in 2012. It has proved to be a very popular move within Russia, with 70% support for its actions in the Crimea.
We should not lose sight of the economic situation facing Russia at this time. Russia’s economy is already in a de facto recession with a drop in investment, a rapid decline in consumer demand and a real terms decrease in incomes. The economy has already shrunk for two consecutive quarters. The rouble is weakening, causing expectations of growth in inflation. Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development has revised downwards its short-term forecasts on an almost monthly basis, so Russia was, and is, in a touch of economic trouble and could be looking for an outside distraction. This strategy worked well for Putin during the upheaval in Chechnya, which boosted his popularity in Russia. However, Russia should be extremely careful in the risks it is taking and the West needs to send a strong message to Moscow that there will be costs and consequences to Russia for this action.
Despite all this, it is right to acknowledge that the crisis did not start because of President Putin. Russia is responding to the situation in Ukraine rather than having a master plan that provoked the current crisis. However, it is also true to say that, rather than helping to resolve the crisis, Russia has sought to exploit and inflame existing ethnic, linguistic and geographic fault lines within Ukrainian society.
The West’s response has been cautious despite Russia’s actions having broken a whole raft of international treaties. The massive increase in the number of troops in Ukraine violates the charter of the UN, the Helsinki Final Act, the Budapest memorandum of 1994 and the Russia-Ukraine agreement on military bases.
Ultimately, however, we need a stable situation on the border of the EU and nobody wants to see a military solution to this situation. It is, however, in our interest to ensure that stable, free democratic countries flourish in Europe. Russia, through its actions, has now entirely isolated itself from the international community on this issue. I particularly welcome the abstention by China from the UN vote on the illegitimacy of the referendum in Crimea at the weekend. This really demonstrates to Russia that it is friendless in pursuit of its policies in Crimea. However, an isolated Russia in the long term is in nobody’s interest. We have a moral responsibility to help Ukraine. It is worth heeding the words of Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, even if, as my noble friend indicated, some of the guarantees are perceived rather than real. Arseniy Yatsenyuk said:
“A country which willingly gave up its nuclear arsenal … and received guarantees from the world’s leading countries, finds itself unprotected, one-on-one with a country which is armed to its teeth. If you do not uphold these guarantees … then explain how you will convince Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear status”.
Events in eastern Ukraine over the past couple of days are potentially more dangerous than the situation in Crimea. In Crimea, Russian troops are present under a long-standing agreement, although they have gone way beyond the agreed remit. However, if Russian forces keep pushing into eastern Ukraine, it becomes unambiguously an invasion. The killing of a Ukrainian officer in an attack on a base in Crimea, reported this afternoon, is an ominous step in the wrong direction.
We need to support a graduated hierarchy of diplomatic and economic measures against Russia. Already, as we have heard, the EU has agreed to suspend the Russian visa liberalisation programme and has pulled out of Sochi G8 preparation meetings. European Union member states have agreed the wording of sanctions on Russia, including travel restrictions and asset freezes against those responsible for violating the sovereignty of Ukraine—but, disappointingly, only 21 of them. We need to know from the Government whether, at the EU Council on Thursday and Friday of this week, the UK Government will urge the cancellation of the EU-Russia summit scheduled for June. I ask the Minister for clarification on whether the Government are looking to suspend Russia from the G8 group.
Russia now really understands that it is an integrated part of the world market and cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. This should have been heard loud and clear in Moscow on 3 March when Russia’s stock market plummeted by 12% and the rouble fell by 1.9% against the dollar, in spite of massive intervention by Russia’s central bank—although they have risen since. There will inevitably be a knock-on effect in terms of a decline in investment due to both the increased cost of borrowing in Russia and the further alienation of investors.
Russia needs Europe. Exporting natural gas to Europe is big money for Russia; it accounts for a fifth of its total earnings, some £60 billion a year. Sanctions on that will hurt. Nobody is suggesting that Europe can switch gas suppliers overnight but, over the medium to long term, the EU simply cannot risk more than 30% of its supplies coming from such a politically unstable source. For a decade, Europe has been aware of this vulnerable overdependence on Russia but has not moved fast enough to look to alternative markets. To be fair, the alternative options were not evident before, but shale gas from the US could provide a medium-term solution to Europe and cause a problem to the Russians. It cannot happen overnight but the Russians must be aware that they are playing a dangerous game with their largest customers, and the US must be prepared to open its gas market to the world if it is serious about helping Europe in response to the Russian situation.
There will be a cost to Europe as well, and Britain and the West will need to decide whether we are serious about standing up to this bully and whether we are prepared to take the economic hit to make our point. I regret that, to date, the EU’s unity in condemning Russia’s military aggression has not been matched by a shared resolve to act more decisively in extracting costs and consequences for this action. I hope that the European Council next week will consider expanding the list of Ukrainian and Russian officials who will be subject to targeted measures if Russia does not indicate a change of course. President Putin may believe that sanctions will not last, as was the case after the Georgian war of 2008, but the West needs to send a clear message that needs to be sustained over the long term. Russia is faced with two alternative futures: greater integration within, or greater isolation from, the existing international order.
However, a strong signal needs to be sent to Ukraine as well. The Ukrainian military needs to be commended on its calm response to the situation so far. Despite considerable efforts to provoke a reaction with increasingly aggressive behaviour in the east of Ukraine by Russian supporters, the military of Ukraine has so far not been provoked into action. Minorities in Ukraine need to be given assurances that they will be protected and that Russian speakers will not suffer discrimination. Legitimate elections need to be overseen by the international community to give credibility to Ukrainian leaders. We need to see an end to rampant corruption in the country and a loosening of the stranglehold that some of the oligarchs have on the place. If Ukraine changes, the West will need to help with technical assistance and significant financial support.
Last weekend’s referendum in Crimea needs to be seen for what it is—an artificial and unfair political construct that has no legitimacy. No campaigning was allowed by Ukrainian supporters, there were no voter lists and, shortly after the referendum was called, Ukrainian TV channels were removed from both terrestrial broadcasts and cable networks in Crimea. Some of them were replaced by Russian stations.
We are in a crisis situation. Russia shows no signs of being cowed by the sanctions that the West has imposed so far. The answer to this problem can clearly not be a military one, but it is in all our interests to try to de-escalate the situation while remaining robust and ensuring that the international community responds together to this frightening situation on our continent. The international community must now do more to encourage Russia to engage in a constructive dialogue, while simultaneously applying greater pressure if President Putin refuses to change course. A combination of deft diplomacy, shared resolve and a unified response are the best ways in which we can de-escalate this dangerous crisis, ultimately reaffirm Ukrainian sovereignty and preserve European security. The Government will have our support in helping to achieve this desired outcome.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I thank, in particular, the Opposition Front Bench for that very constructive and helpful speech. This is a take note debate, and I cannot, and would not wish to, announce the definitive policy of Her Majesty’s Government in response to the Ukraine crisis because it is still under way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, the important question is not where we are but where it ends. As the noble Lord, Lord Soley, wisely said, it would be naive to consider that it will stop here. There is some way to go and we have some influence over where it will end, and the Government are fully engaged in trying to bring to bear the influence that they have.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend and colleague the Foreign Secretary was at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, where a number of decisions were taken. On Thursday and Friday, the Prime Minister will be at the European Council, at which a number of further decisions may be taken, and we will continue from there. We do not yet know how far President Putin will go. So far as we can see, this is very much a matter of what President Putin wants. I am not even sure that it is very valuable at present to talk to the Russian Foreign Minister—I am not sure that he always entirely knows what President Putin wants to do. Whether or not the Russians will continue to complete the annexation of Crimea within the next week is clearly one of the matters that we will have to take into consideration. We will do our best to help and will put pressure to bear so that that does not happen, but it may. Therefore, there is a great deal to play for and we will have to come back to further discussions in both Houses of Parliament and, of course, to continuing discussions with our allies and partners in the European Union and NATO and more widely within the UN. Her Majesty’s Government are extremely hard at work in co-operation with all our allies and friends.
A great deal has been said in this debate about interpretations of history—about Russian motivations, Putin’s motivation and the Russian view of their place in the world and their post-imperial angst. This country is not entirely without its post-imperial angst. The rest of the world does not always pay that much attention to us. We go into great paroxysms over why the Europeans are not nicer to us and why they do not give us what we want when we wish to have a bit of this, a bit of that and not too much of the other, but we sometimes have to accept that the rest of the world does not see the world as we wish to see it. That is also true of Russia today.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly said that what we have in Russia is a 19th-century approach to a 21st-century world—one in which it thinks that hard power is all that counts, with no truck with the soft power, on which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is such an expert. There is an expectation of easy access to the open societies of the West without a reciprocal impact on Russian society and the Russian economy. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, who talked about whether Russia had a choice between integration and isolation. My understanding of one of the many themes of Russian history is that modernising efforts in Russia have always been an attempt to take the technical advances from the West without accepting the social and political implications. That was true of Peter the Great, it was true of the 19th century and I think that it is exactly true of where Putin is now. That is part of the problem. They think that they can pick and choose. Incidentally, there are those in this country who think they can pick and choose the quality of our relations with our major partners and are now discovering that they cannot. The Russians may also be discovering that they cannot, but certainly the mindset of Putin and those around him is that Russia can pick and choose and have the advantages of access to the open economy and open society of the West without allowing those influences to contaminate the autocracy of Russia.
Other countries also cherish nationalist memories and myths of their own, which we do not always wish to accommodate. After all, it was the myth that Kosovo was the birthplace of the Serbian nation that persuaded Milosevic and others to cling on to Kosovo in spite of the fact that there were no longer many Serbs living there. There are Muslims across the Middle East who believe that the reconstruction of Islamic caliphate is a vital part in reconstructing their myth of history. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not share that view. Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans that the Russian Orthodox Church in the high point of the Tsarist Empire collaborated in the idea that Moscow had become the third Rome and, as the third Rome, was entitled to reconquer the second Rome so that Constantinople logically should belong to Russia. That is not something which we accepted and, indeed, part of why we fought the Crimean War was to prevent the Russians from expanding to take over Constantinople.
All those things are a matter of how one views history and, as we all know, there are different ways in which to view it. Crimea is Russian today; it was Tatar yesterday; it has been a matter between many different nations. As I was writing this today from my limited knowledge of Ukraine, I was thinking that, within the lifetime of the majority of Members of this House, the people of Ukraine have been through the most incredible amount of suffering, changing of boundaries and one thing after another. My colleagues in the Foreign Office have always tried to get me to read a number of different books. I have read Timothy Snyder’s Bloodlands, which is entirely about how the lands between Germany and Russia suffered from the 1930s through to the 1940s. Famine in Ukraine was followed by the German invasion and then by the Soviet counterinvasion, which left the Ukrainians deeply divided, confused and mistrustful of each other and of all government.
We are working very hard on how to respond to Russian interventions. We have suspended indefinitely preparations for the G8 meeting in Sochi in June. It would be wrong for the G8 summit to go ahead in the current circumstances. We are considering what other measures to take. Of course, we recognise that we need to continue to talk to the Russian Government and, even more, to Russian society about a whole range of issues. But normal diplomatic relations cannot continue on the privileged basis which Russia felt that it would have.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that a historical mistake is now being corrected—we could spend a lot of time talking about what historical mistakes are—and suggested that there was no evidence of force. The evidence we have is that there are now 30,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea and that the Crimean parliament’s vote on unification with Russia took place with armed troops of Russian origin in the building.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Is the figure of 30,000 in excess of what was possible under the agreement that existed prior to this crisis?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is considerable evidence that a large number of Russian troops have arrived in Crimea in the past two to three weeks. My clear understanding is that it is not within the agreement. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. As a matter of interest, a number of troops, including troops from within the North Caucasus, were engaged in—one might put it gently—holding down Chechnya. We recognise that Russia’s rational interests lie in a prosperous and stable Ukraine, as a number of noble Lords have said. We also recognise that international politics is not entirely rational. The First World War would not have broken out if international politics had been entirely rational.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that of course the UK will do everything possible to maintain a constructive dialogue but it has to be a dialogue in which both sides listen and search for agreement on shared principles. We cannot accept that Russia has one set of principles but expects us to observe another. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked of stand-up arguments with Duma deputies. A lot of us have had that. I seem to remember having such an argument when I was leading a delegation that included the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I rather enjoyed the exchanges.
We have to tell the truth to our Russian partners and recognise that those within the elite demand the rest of the world to accept the special character of the Russian state, which we are not prepared to accept. Russian suggestions that we should move towards a federal and loose Ukraine while maintaining a centralised and authoritarian Russia are a good example of how proposals are being made that would be irrational to accept, but it is attempting to impose them.
It is deeply regretful that the current Russian regime appears to need weak and divided neighbours in order to feel secure. One worry is that a weak Crimea will join an occupied South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria and others as a means of weakening the states around Russia.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am sure that the Minister is not misrepresenting the Russian position. However, equally, many of us have argued that no matter whether it is federal, devo-max or so on, you cannot go on with a unitary state with the sort of election results of 51% and 49%—and then winner takes all and you have arrested the leader of the Opposition. That is why I mentioned Northern Ireland. There is a caricature going on here.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There are all sorts of questions in the noble Lord's remarks and I could respond in a number of ways, but at this time of night I hesitate to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, suggested that we might have a sort of sale and lease back with the Russians. The Ukrainian constitution makes it clear that any alteration of the territory of Ukraine must be resolved by an all-Ukrainian referendum. Article 134 of the constitution sets out that the autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral constituent part of Ukraine and can only resolve issues related to the authority within the provisions set out by the Ukrainian constitution.
One could have negotiated this. The Government consider the referendum in Crimea to be illegal because it has been rushed through under the presence of a large number of Russian troops without updating the inaccuracy of the electoral register, with OSCE observers being refused entry. It is therefore not in any way acceptable to international standards.
The UN Security Council resolution was clear and strong on all of this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that of course there is a role for the UN Secretary-General and the UN. The Chinese abstention was a silent acknowledgement that some fundamental principles of international law and international sovereignty are at stake in this crisis.
A number of noble Lords suggested that we have to include Russia in all future discussions with Ukraine. Of course we do. We still make every effort we can to maintain a dialogue with Russia. We continue to urge Russia not to take any further action towards annexation of Ukraine. The UK remains supportive of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement and it is now likely that the political and foreign policy aspects of the association agreement will be signed at the meeting of the European Council this week.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The Minister referred to the fact that OSCE monitors have been denied access. I understand that the Russians are claiming that something like 100 international monitors went in. Is that true or are they misleading us? If it is true, do we know where those monitors came from in the world community?
Lord Hylton
My Lords, before the Minister replies to that, will he say something about the OSCE in the sense that it may well provide an opportunity for achieving consensus for de-escalating the situation and for the giving up of extreme positions?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I do not have any information on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I am aware of Russian reports that observers are there. They are certainly not under any international or umbrella organisation, the Council of Europe or the OSCE. We hope to discover more. The OSCE does have a role to play and a number of OSCE missions of one sort or another are currently either in Ukraine or in prospect, and members of those missions are British. The OSCE is an entirely appropriate framework to work with for this development.
Russia, as noble Lords know, has not always been the most constructive member of the OSCE in recent years. A number of noble Lords suggested that we may have contributed to that, and perhaps have even provoked Russia. Bill Cash MP was indeed interviewed on “Russia Today” last Thursday suggesting that it was really all the EU’s fault. I am not entirely sure that I share that view. Comparisons are also made between Kosovo and Crimea, to which I would simply say that our action in Kosovo was a response to a humanitarian situation in which there was clear evidence of ethnic cleansing and that a large number of people had been killed. It was a slow process in which we recognised that the situation was slipping out of control. None of that has happened in Crimea. The interim Government in Kiev bear no comparison with Belgrade under Milosevic and we took action in Kosovo only after years of diplomatic effort, whereas in Crimea Russia has chosen the military option first and rushed through what appears to be likely annexation.
I turn to the situation within Ukraine. My noble friend Lord Alderdice suggested that Ukraine is split down the middle. To that I would say that it is more confused, fractured, misgoverned and mistrustful. There is some evidence that many Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine are more mistrustful of Russia now than they were even a year or two ago, with some justification. The extent to which we understand what is happening inside Ukraine is something that I suspect we need to be cautious about.
The biggest question is this: can the West’s soft power defeat Russia’s hard power? It did not in 1913-14. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford—who I regret to see has not remained in his place having intervened earlier—was that Russia would just shrug economic sanctions off. However, a number of noble Lords talked about the long-term costs in terms of shifting away from energy imports. Of course we are talking to other countries, including the Norwegians, about future energy supplies. The costs to Russia in terms of a deterioration in foreign investment and of its other openings are likely to be quite damaging in the long term. The question here is how long is the long term, and what damage under its current regime can Russia do first?
Let me try to cover one or two other points before I finish. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is not British policy that Ukraine should join NATO. Many of us felt that the attempt by the Bush Administration at the Bucharest summit in 2008 to push NATO enlargement as far as Georgia and Ukraine was a mistake. The Foreign Secretary has said on a number of occasions that we are not asking Ukraine to choose between Russia and the West, but I should also remind noble Lords that the EU’s approach to enlargement was not a great push by the Union. As I discovered when I first started going around eastern Europe in the 1990s, it was a reluctant response to insistent demands from our eastern European partners to gain access to our legal framework, to our economy and to our security provisions. The Estonians and others were particularly strong on that. There is a monument in Tallinn to the British squadron which preserved the independence of Estonia from the Russians in 1919, and the country still remembers that. The Poles, who have a lot of influence in this area, are also conscious that they contributed a great deal to the British effort in the Second World War, something which UKIP has now happily scrubbed out of our historical memory. The largest number of non-British pilots in the Battle of Britain were Polish, so we are not dealing with an area with which we have no historical concern or very little historical connection.
I am conscious of the time. A number of noble Lords spoke about money-laundering. We have sent a group from the National Crime Agency, the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service to help the Ukrainians in their efforts to investigate the stolen funds and we are working with them on that. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised some very specific questions about the Magnitsky case, which it may be appropriate for me to write to him about.
We have to reassure our east European allies. We are working with our friends and colleagues and will continue to do so as well as we can. We are in mid-crisis and do not know how or when this crisis will end, but Her Majesty’s Government will continue to work with our European and NATO partners and, more broadly, within and through the UN. There are fundamental principles of international law and sovereignty at stake, so we will return to this issue in both Houses of Parliament as we proceed. We will of course attempt to maintain a dialogue with the Russians, difficult though that is likely to be, and to pursue a reasoned and reasonable outcome. We will offer all the technical and financial assistance we can to Ukraine, together with our partners. As in so many international crises, there is no easy solution to be found, and we have to bend our efforts to promote an outcome that may be acceptable to all.