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 ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
1. What recent discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues on further devolution of power from Westminster and Whitehall.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
I am a member of the local growth committee, which is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and brings together Ministers from a wide range of Departments monthly to focus on local growth programmes, including the delivery of the recommendations of the Heseltine review. To date, we have completed 24 city deals and by the summer all 39 local enterprise partnerships, which have submitted their economic plans, will have been assessed and we will make the announcements of local growth deals at that point.
Bob Blackman
Further devolution has taken place to Scotland and to Wales, and it has now been a year since the London Finance Commission reported on proposals for devolution to London and the great cities. What progress has my right hon. Friend made in his discussions with Treasury colleagues on devolving property taxes to London and the other great cities of this country?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is a great champion of empowering our great cities—he is a distinguished leader of a London council—and he knows we have made great progress in this area. He will know that the devolution of business rates, for example, allows London, and other parts of the country, to keep 50% of business rate income. That is worth £3 billion a year to London, and those retained business rates have helped to pay for the £1 billion Northern line extension to Battersea, so this is working in London.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Minister a little more on real devolution to the regions of this country? Yorkshire now has no democratic voice; it has no organisation that strategically focuses on Yorkshire in the coming years. Yorkshire has a bigger population than Scotland, so when can we have that kind of focus and leadership?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. I have a great deal of respect for him but he has not noticed the creation of the combined authority in Yorkshire, which has brought together the councils in the area for precisely that purpose. It has included the signing of a city deal, which has been hailed by the people of Yorkshire, including the leader of Leeds city council, who says:
“This…spells…a fundamental shift in the relationship between Whitehall and the regions. It marks the first steps of a new era”
That will allow the north to “truly control” its “own destiny.” I think the hon. Gentleman should talk to Councillor Wakefield.
Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)
Would the Minister concur with the view that in the event of Scotland rejecting the independence option in September, the option of devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall represents a post-referendum way forward—but that it can be only one side of a two-sided coin, with the other being more re-dispersal of power within and across Scotland? The highlands and islands have lost power from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to Edinburgh, from the Crofting Commission to Edinburgh, and over regional and local control of our emergency services. That is not what those of us who were arguing for devolution before some Scottish National party Members were Members of this House had in mind.
Greg Clark
The policy and the practice of this Government has been to devolve power from this place to our great cities across the country. I do not think that has been the policy of the Administration in Scotland, who have centralised power and reduced the influence of our great cities north of the border.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
City deals are a good start, but if our city regions really want to prosper the time has come to give them the power to levy a supplement on the business rates, as the Mayor of London has.
Greg Clark
I am a great fan of the hon. Lady’s efforts to promote Birmingham, which she does very successfully in this House, and to make sure that that great city has the powers and the future that are a tribute to its glories in the past. Through the city deals we are giving more control of the very considerable expenditure that currently is made in Birmingham but which is handled by central Government. If we do that, we can come on to address proposals that Birmingham is making on other matters.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
2. What discussions he has had with the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership on devolving powers and responsibilities from central Government.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
I met the board members of Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership, including Christine Gaskell and Howard Hopwood, and the council leaders of Cheshire east, Cheshire west and Chester, to discuss their strategic economic plan on 19 March. We are considering their proposals in their plan and expect to make an announcement on the growth deal in July.
Stephen Mosley
One project being promoted by the Cheshire and Warrington LEP is electrification of the west coast main line from Crewe to Chester and beyond into north Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that and other such proposals show the importance of LEPs acting as strong local champions for critical infrastructure projects?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right, and he is exactly such a strong local champion. As a result of his impressive campaign, that proposal features very strongly in the Cheshire and Warrington strategic plan. I know that it has also attracted attention from Sir David Higgins and his report on HS2, which mentions the case for further improvements east and west, so he is doing a good job. We will be considering those plans over the next few months, but he has made his point very forcefully today.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
3. What the Government's policy is on introducing regional Ministers to champion specific areas of the country.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
This Government have instituted the most radical devolution of power and financial autonomy to local councils and community groups for a generation. It is our policy to empower local leaders in cities, counties and districts. Local leaders support that approach. Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester city council, said that there has been more progress on giving cities control of their destiny in three years of this Government than under 13 years of Labour.
Greg Clark
The route we have taken is to empower the leaders of our great cities and counties to provide that leadership of their area. We do not want to send, as the previous Government did, governors-general from Westminster and Whitehall to preside over the regions. That is why our 24 city deals have been based on what local leaders and businesses want; it is their ideas that they have put forward and we back them.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
The Government have conceded the principle of territorial Ministers in England with the appointment of the City Minister for Portsmouth. As I understand it, the reason the Government did that was economic development-led. Surely the case for the north-east of England is far stronger, with unemployment rates being higher.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman was a regional Minister in the previous Government. Let me just reflect for a moment on my home town of Middlesbrough. I carry around with me a medallion that was struck to commemorate a statue, publicly unveiled, to the first mayor of Middlesbrough. We are still waiting in Middlesbrough to see a public move to erect a statue to the former regional Minister of the north-east. We want to empower our local leaders, and what we are doing is the right way round.
Mr Speaker
I am sure we are all very interested in the Minister’s medallion.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I agree with the Minister that this idea of regional Ministers is not the way forward, and that it is important to strengthen local government. Does he agree that there is a place for elected mayors within that?
Greg Clark
I do agree with that. Having cited the first mayor of Middlesbrough, Henry Bolckow, and noted that a statue erected by public subscription was made to him, I think that it would be good if we had a rash of them across the country in tribute to the leadership that mayors can play.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Does the Minister not realise that devolving power is useless—worthless—if, at the same time, this Government are cutting local government funds by 40%?
Greg Clark
That is not the view of council leaders in the hon. Gentleman’s area, who have been extremely enthusiastic about the city deals that have been struck. The chair of the Sheffield city region, in which the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is involved, says that the powers that have been devolved through the city deal will
“drive forward real economic growth and create jobs”
for the whole region, including for the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
4. What steps he plans to take to reform the system of party political funding and donations to political parties by trade unions.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
The Government have always been clear that any reform of party political funding is best achieved by consensus. Despite seven meetings, it is disappointing that, as on previous occasions, there has been no agreement between the three parties on beginning party funding reform.
Priti Patel
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that new laws to restrict the money and influence of trade unions in British political life are required? Will he join the Prime Minister in supporting reforms to strike laws to protect the public from unnecessary industrial action?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I certainly agree that all parties need to get big money and vested interests out of party funding. That can best and only be done through consensus. It did not happen this time; I very much hope that all parties will make a commitment that everyone will stick to in the next Parliament.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that trade union funding has been given a clean bill of health by three public inquiries, whereas his own party has taken large amounts of money from a convicted fraudster?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is really important that vested interests representing one part of society or another do not dominate the funding of one major political party, as with the Labour party. That does not seem to be right for the Labour party or for the quality of democracy in this House.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
5. What discussions he has had with the Leicester and Leicestershire local enterprise partnership on devolving powers and responsibilities from central Government.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
I was in Leicestershire on 24 March this year to launch the Leicester and Leicestershire city deal, when I visited the Loughborough university science and enterprise park. The city deal will support the expansion of the science park by opening up new employment land. It will also increase investment in youth employment schemes and give tailored business support.
Andrew Bridgen
Last Friday, I spoke at the “North West Leicestershire means business” event at the world-famous Donington Park race track in my constituency. At the event, we heard contributions from the Leicester and Leicestershire enterprise partnership about their efforts to promote economic growth. Will my right hon. Friend outline how he believes the recent city deal will help to promote further economic growth across the county of Leicestershire?
Greg Clark
I will indeed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his support for the city deal, which includes not only the city of Leicester but the whole of the county of Leicestershire. One of the features of the city deal proposed by local businesses was to give support and guidance to small businesses that are seeking to expand. Grants of up to £1 million are available to small businesses throughout Leicestershire that have that potential. I know that he drew the scheme to the attention of his businesses and I hope that he will continue to do so.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
6. What recent assessment he has made of progress on the Government’s policy of decentralisation in England.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
This Government have instituted the most radical devolution of power and financial autonomy to local councils for a generation. After ever-increasing centralisation under the previous Government, we believe that all regions, cities and towns can play a part in securing the economic recovery and in building a better and stronger economy for the future.
Lorely Burt
Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving local enterprise greater control over its own destiny has helped to rejuvenate the entrepreneurial spirit of local areas? Will he commend the ambition of Birmingham and Solihull LEP’s strategic economic plan, which aims to create 41,000 jobs for a Government investment of only £86 million next year?
Greg Clark
I will indeed commend that ambition. It is appropriate that the enterprise partnership that brings together Birmingham and Solihull has the great good fortune to be led by Andy Street, the managing director of John Lewis and one of the country’s most admired business people. It is fantastic that he is devoting his time to helping the local economy to grow and providing that private sector leadership, which is in marked contrast to the regional development agencies that we had in the past, presided over by governors-general such as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
The social economy is becoming an increasingly important driver of innovation and growth. We have 75,000 social enterprises in this country, employing 1 million people, and one in four businesses in the European Union is now a social business. Will the Minister commit in his conversations about city deals and about local enterprise and growth to ensure that social enterprises and the social economy are at the heart of that drive to reinvigorate the regions of this country?
Greg Clark
I certainly will. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady. I recall going to Brighton to sign the Brighton city deal in a social enterprise—a hub for start-up tech businesses, brought together by the voluntary and social enterprise sector, that is thriving. Part of the deal was to expand it. That is a model to which I hope other places in the country will aspire.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Government are right to pursue the principle of decentralisation, because local communities are best placed to make public investment decisions in their area? An excellent example is the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, building on the strength of the area, which is advanced manufacturing.
Greg Clark
I do indeed agree and my hon. Friend was a stalwart in campaigning for the city deal. The people who know and understand their areas best are those who live and work in them. That is the simple principle behind our city deals and the policy of this Government.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for his answers and his commitment to this area in general, which we support? Council leaders of all parties in London and the Mayor of London believe that greater powers, including financial responsibility, should be devolved to London. The Minister answered the question from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about business rates—a move that we welcome—in the past tense. Do the Government have any plans to transfer power from Whitehall to city hall and town halls in London?
Greg Clark
Yes. I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a personal interest, as he is hoping to move on from this place to city hall, although he might face a tough fight in doing so. We are committed totally to moving power from here to the city halls and town halls of the country. At the moment, we are negotiating a £2 billion a year transfer of funds from the centre to every city and county across the country, including London, to put control of these resources in the hands of local people rather than officials in Whitehall.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
7. What steps he is taking to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)
Individual electoral registration will help to enhance the accuracy of the electoral register by verifying applications against Government records. We will also use data matching to ensure the completeness of the register during the transition to the new system by confirming the vast majority of existing electors. Five national organisations and every local authority in Great Britain are sharing £4.2 million of funding aimed at maximising registration. The introduction of online registration will be of particular help to groups such as overseas voters, students and young people.
Yvonne Fovargue
If the Electoral Commission recommends in its report due in 2015 that the move should not go ahead because too many voters have dropped off the register, will the Minister listen to its advice?
Greg Clark
With respect, the hon. Lady is bringing together two different points. The Electoral Commission has already said that individual voter registration should proceed, stating:
“We have independently assessed how ready the plans are for this change…and have concluded that it can proceed.”
The decision on whether to close the transition is a decision for the next Government and the Electoral Commission has said that it will provide advice during the next Parliament.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
When individual registration was introduced in Northern Ireland, the registration of young people fell dramatically. A duty was then placed on schools and colleges to help register their students and Northern Ireland now has registration rates among young people that are higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister introduce a similar duty to apply to schools and colleges in the rest of the United Kingdom so that we maximise the number of young people who are registered?
Greg Clark
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter, as he knows. We have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland and that is one reason we have provided the funding we have to enable groups of people to go into schools and encourage people to register. One of the differences from which we have learned a lesson concerns the importance of online registration, which was not available in Northern Ireland. Our approach to registering young people is to encourage them to register online, and that will be carried out across the country.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)
As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policy and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.
Bridget Phillipson
Real wages are down, 1.4 million people are stuck on zero-hours contracts and thousands more families have been forced to turn to food banks. Is that the right hon. Gentleman’s party making a difference in government?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might have forgotten that when we came to power her party had left an absolute economic catastrophe behind. The great Labour recession in 2008 cost every household in this country more than £3,000. Her party predicted that more than 1 million more people would be unemployed when in fact 1.7 million new jobs have been created, of which we are very proud.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
T5. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has been somewhat exercised about minimum terms for knife crime, but he must be aware of the repeated guidance of senior judges and the residual discretion that will exist in the proposals to reflect other minimum terms. What is his beef?
The Deputy Prime Minister
It is important that sentences fit the circumstances of a crime and that, in seeking to address knife crime, which is a concern that unites the House, we do not unwittingly do something that can lead to higher reoffending rates. As we know from bitter experience, decanting young people into prison for short sentences leads to a revolving door of crime. I want to see less crime, not more, and that is why I want us to be smart, not simply to talk tough on crime.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
Not least as a result of difficulties in being able to afford to buy a home, 9 million people are now renting. That figure includes 1.3 million families with children, for whom security and continuity are particularly important. Does the Deputy Prime Minister back our plans to move from one-year tenancies with unpredictable rents, to three-year tenancies with predictable rents? Will he back our proposal to stop letting agencies charging tenants as well as landlords?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Lady makes an important point about the virtues of longer-term tenancies. We are working on a model tenancy agreement that will support tenants and families who want a longer fixed-term tenancy, and will publish the final agreement in the summer.
Although the right hon. and learned Lady rightly identifies the problem on agencies’ charges, the solution that she suggests may lead to higher rental costs for people renting properties. That is why we will announce today that we will place new obligations on agents to publish with full transparency the fees that they charge, so that people can shop around and get the best deal available.
Ms Harman
But transparency is not good enough. We need to be sure that letting agents do not rip tenants off by, as well as charging the landlords, charging the tenants. There will be a vote in the House today. Will he vote with us to protect people in rented accommodation, or will he back the Tories in standing up for the rip-off letting agencies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I explained, we all share the right hon. and learned Lady’s concern about those charges. We just want to make sure that the solution does not make the situation worse, because once rents go up, they tend to stay up.
The fundamental problem, for which her party bears a heavy responsibility, is that we are simply not building enough affordable homes in this country, and have not done so for a long period. Under the previous Government, fewer social homes were built than under the Thatcher Government. Now, the rate of affordable house building is higher than it has been in the past 20 years.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
T6. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that consumers deserve to have clear labelling of all halal meat in stores and restaurants? If my constituents go to Pizza Express, they expect the guidance and labelling to be on the menu, not just on the website.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have a lot of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Consumers need the right information about the food that they are buying. Some meat is already voluntarily labelled as halal or kosher. This is an issue that provokes strong responses, and for some people it is important that all meat is labelled clearly. We are working with other EU countries to look at the best options for compulsory labelling, to give consumers the choice they want. A study into this matter will finish this summer, and we will review the options then.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
T3. The Deputy Prime Minister claims that he has lowered taxes for poorer households by raising the personal allowance, but will he confirm that the localisation of council tax support is raising taxes for the very worst off?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As I said earlier, we inherited a situation in which we needed to restore stability to the public finances, create growth, create employment and create an incentive for people to work. That is why there have been some controversial reforms, but we have also introduced the biggest change in the personal income tax system in a generation, taking 3 million people on low pay out of paying any income tax.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
T7. How big a contribution is the Government’s universal free school meal policy expected to make to social mobility?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Despite some claims to the contrary, this policy has been researched and worked on for many years, including two two-year pilots. The evidence shows not only that children get a health benefit from eating more healthy meals and a social benefit as they sit together to share those meals but that the policy is having dramatic effects on closing the attainment gap, which is still too wide in far too many of our schools across the country.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
T4. Last week, I met a disabled Sheffield grandmother who helped her two daughters to stay in work by looking after her grandchildren a few times a week, but two of her three bedrooms were deemed surplus by the Government. In tears, she told me that she could not make ends meet because of the bedroom tax. The Deputy Prime Minister is trying to distance himself from the Conservatives, but why not on the bedroom tax, which was only voted through with his support?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman and I have debated in the past, the fact that many families, including in Sheffield, live in overcrowded properties where there is no space for young children to do their homework, and not enough space for people to live in decent conditions, is a fundamental problem. Overcrowding is a real issue, yet we have many other places where people live in social rented accommodation with rooms that they do not need. In some way—I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to put his head in the sand like the rest of his party and does not want to deal with any of these difficult issues—we need to make sense of that, and that is what we are trying to do.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
T8. Cummins Turbo Technologies, David Brown and Huddersfield university have benefited from regional growth fund investment. What plans does the Deputy Prime Minister have for further rounds of that investment scheme, which is sustaining, safeguarding and creating sustainable jobs in my part of west Yorkshire.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of the regional growth fund. I have visited a number of the projects that he mentioned. Rounds 1 to 5 of the regional growth fund have awarded Yorkshire and Humber £270 million across 52 projects and programmes, which is expected to generate 64,000 jobs and private investment of £1.7 billion. There are many examples, as he himself has cited. The next round—round 6—will open this summer, so local bidders will be able to make further bids for regional growth fund money at that point.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
T9. At the last election, political parties spent 10 times what third parties spent, so why did the Government choose to clamp down on third parties, which will do very little to take the big money out of politics?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will send the hon. Gentleman the statistics. The amount of expenditure by third parties at election time has increased dramatically. What all of us on both sides of the House want to avoid is an American-style situation in which more and more organisations effectively seek to influence the electoral contest in different areas and constituencies, but do not abide by the same levels of transparency as political parties. All we are doing is saying to people who want to influence the outcome of an election that they need to publish the same amount of information in the same transparent way as we do as representatives of our political parties.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
T11. It is very welcome and appropriate that the Government officially recognise that Cornwall has a significant role to play in the celebration of diversity in the UK, but given the Government’s clear desire to devolve, will my right hon. Friend ensure that Cornwall is given the appropriate powers within the EU funding programme to make decisions and drive the programme itself?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I share with my hon. Friend the good news that the Government have formally recognised the distinct identity of the Cornish people and, indeed, have provided more support for the teaching of the Cornish language. On the issue of the so-called convergence programme and the management of EU funding programmes in Cornwall, discussions are ongoing. Cornwall will have full input through the growth programme board and through local committees.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
T10. The Government are keen to talk up their investment in cities, but they are doing nothing to ensure that superfast broadband is rolled out properly, with a third of businesses in Shoreditch, where Tech City is, not having access to it. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take that up in government? What will he do about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about a particular instance in which she feels that progress has not been made, I am more than happy to take that up. As she will know, huge progress has been made in rolling out superfast broadband across the country, but she is right that there are bottlenecks that we are working constantly to alleviate. If she wants to raise any specific instances with me, I am happy to make sure that they are addressed.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T12. Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s chairmanship of the Home Affairs Cabinet Committee, does he agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the vast majority of the British people that it would be in the country’s best interest to have a net reduction in net migration?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been a significant reduction in the number of people coming to our country from outside the European Union. I have never been an advocate of specific net migration figures, because there are many factors—not least freedom of movement across the European Union—over which we do not have any control. I want to have an immigration system that is tough where it needs to be tough. That is why I am a leading advocate of the reintroduction of exit checks—which were removed by previous Governments—so that we can count people out as well as in, but being welcoming to those people who want to play by the rules, pay their taxes and make a contribution to British life.
Mr Speaker
I note that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is sitting in a diagonally opposite position to his usual preferred berth.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
T14. It is difficult to hit a moving target, Mr Speaker. There are enormous variations in the numbers registered by electoral registration officers: the best figure is in north Wales, where up to 97% of eligible voters are registered, but it is clear that some areas are not doing the same job. What will the Deputy Prime Minister do to encourage these English laggards to catch up with the splendid example set by Wales?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Of course, we need to see the highest rates of registration possible. That is why, as we move towards individual voter registration, there will be several opportunities to transfer people automatically on to the new register and to make sure that there are door-to-door visits by electoral registration officers to give people the opportunity to register properly. I believe we are putting in place all the belt-and-braces measures we can to make sure that registration levels increase.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
T13. Tomorrow, the Chester-based Registered Digital Institute, along with supporting charities such as Childnet, the Internet Watch Foundation and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, will come to Parliament to demonstrate the new friendly wi-fi scheme, which will help ensure that public networks are safe for families and children to use. Will my right hon. Friend support this worthwhile new initiative to improve online safety?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I welcome, as no doubt does my hon. Friend, any initiative taken by industry to help parents keep their children safe online. I warmly welcome the initiative that he is involved with tomorrow. The more we can encourage partnership between industry and Government, the police and other agencies, the better for the safety of our children.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The outgoing chief executive of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership has said:
“I have six big programmes, most are £100 million-plus, with a six-person team. That simply does not work.”
Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with those comments and, if so, what are the Government going to do about it?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If I understand it correctly, that is an issue about the resources which are allocated in the council to those big projects. One of the answers—the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) alluded to this earlier—is ensuring that there is greater devolution, greater control, greater autonomy and freedom to local councils and local areas. That is why the city deal, for instance, has been so warmly welcomed in the north-east.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any plans to extend into Basildon the £20 million TIGER—Thames Gateway innovation, growth and enterprise—fund currently directed at Thurrock?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My understanding is that the proposal to extend the fund is being actively considered now, but no final decision has yet been taken.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Government have hushed up an opinion poll from the taxpayers who paid for it at a cost of £50,000. The poll reportedly shows a surge in support for Scottish independence. Tory and Labour scare stories are not working. There should be no Government secrecy, so will the Deputy Prime Minister be straight with the public on independence and publish that poll? There is no reason that it should be kept secret.
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have learned to try to be a bit wary about opinion polls. The only poll that counts is the poll that will take place on 18 September. I very much hope, and people such as me who do not have a vote—those of us south of the border—fervently hope that the Scottish people will decide to remain part of the family of nations that makes up the United Kingdom, because there is so much that we can do together that we simply cannot do apart. That is very much the argument that I hope will prevail on 18 September.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Can the Deputy Prime Minister ensure that not just local councils’ work, but economic development through the local enterprise partnership, is centralised? Will he give the House an assurance that York will remain with York, North Yorkshire and East Riding local enterprise partnership?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Many of the decisions about exactly where the lines of the maps are drawn in respect of the remit of local enterprise partnerships should, wherever possible, be driven heavily by local consensus—by people agreeing among themselves, rather than having some diktat imposed from above. Inasmuch as my hon. Friend’s view reflects local opinion, which I do not know as well as she does, we would like to reinforce that in Whitehall as well.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Has not Patrick Mercer’s recent resignation as MP for Newark reinforced the urgent need for measures on recalling MPs, which the Deputy Prime Minister has promised? When will he introduce them?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Both the Prime Minister and I have made it clear that we want to proceed with proposals on recall, and when we do they will be properly scrutinised; the early drafts have already been scrutinised by the relevant Select Committee. We are trying to strike the right balance between ensuring that the public feel that they have a right of recall in circumstances in which serious wrongdoing has occurred and avoiding this becoming a sort of kangaroo court arrangement, with people simply seeking to take actions against each other. That is the balance we are trying to strike. We will of course bring forward proposals in due course.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
On the same issue, given recent events, does the Deputy Prime Minister still believe that voters will be satisfied with a recall system that is triggered by the Standards Committee, rather than constituents? Does he still believe that, despite recent controversies?
The Deputy Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were quite open in the coalition agreement, right at the beginning of the Government—I know that he does not like this—about feeling that there needed to be some triggers to prove that serious wrongdoing had occurred before recall takes place. I actually have quite a lot of sympathy with his much more radical approach, but I doubt that it would curry much favour across the Floor of the House. I want to get something done, rather than aiming for the stars and ending up with nothing.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
What influence does the £960,800 donated to the Liberal Democrats by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust have on Government policy?
The Deputy Prime Minister
A whole lot less than the influence the trade unions have on anything asked by Labour MPs in this Chamber.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Further to the answer the Deputy Prime Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), does he recognise the inconsistency of his position on minimum sentencing for knife crime, given that he voted for it in 2011 on amendments I introduced with the Government for mandatory sentencing for knife crime offences?
The Deputy Prime Minister
That was for a different offence, as the hon. Gentleman knows. His proposal would make simply possessing a knife an offence, assuming that the individual already has a knife-related offence against their name. In those circumstances, in which judges would have no discretion whatsoever, the proposal could, in my view, lead unwittingly to precisely the revolving door of higher rates of reoffending that we saw time and again under the Labour Government, when endless populist gimmicks led to higher rates of reoffending. One of the things that I am proud of is that this coalition Government, by avoiding that approach, have seen crime fall to the lowest levels ever recorded.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Government are not doing nearly enough to move public sector jobs out of London and into the regions. What does the Deputy Prime Minister think we should be doing to move organisations such as the Care Quality Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to places such as Darlington?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am always open, as are the Government, to proposals on moving further parts of the public sector from Whitehall and London to other parts of the country. Sheffield has benefited enormously from that, with the Department for Work and Pensions and the business bank being established there. The BBC, a public sector body, has had a huge imprint on the north-west. We will of course look at any sensible proposals in the same direction.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In assessing LEP plans from across the country, will the Deputy Prime Minister be kind enough to pay particular attention to the need for an extra junction on the A14 near Kettering, which features in the plans of both the Northamptonshire and South East Midlands LEPs?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Any proposal that enjoys the support of not only one local enterprise partnership, but two should of course be considered very seriously, and that is exactly the nature of the consideration being devoted to that proposal.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
1. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the number of prosecutions for human trafficking.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
5. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the number of prosecutions for human trafficking.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
7. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the number of prosecutions for human trafficking.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The Crown Prosecution Service is supporting victims, strengthening investigations, raising awareness among front-line professionals, and improving data collection. The data for 2013-14 show an increase in the number of defendants prosecuted. The CPS is actively involved in the development of provisions in the Government’s draft Modern Slavery Bill.
Jack Lopresti
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the forthcoming Modern Slavery Bill will play a significant part in moving forward to prosecute those involved in the dreadful offence of human trafficking?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, I very much agree. The forthcoming Bill will play a vital role in tackling the abhorrent practices of human trafficking and modern slavery. It will strengthen the law and protect and support victims. I am a member of the inter-ministerial group, and my officials and the CPS have been closely involved in developing these measures under the leadership of the Home Secretary, who is widely admired for her stance on this issue.
Karl MᶜCartney
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that an important part of the process of increasing the number of prosecutions for human trafficking is to ensure that there is sufficient support for victims of this terrible crime? What further support is the CPS providing to victims in this regard?
The Solicitor-General
Yes, I entirely agree. A focus on supporting victims, stronger prosecutions and better data collection is key. In December, the Director of Public Prosecutions held a meeting with voluntary bodies and others, and he has produced an action plan that is very much focused on supporting victims.
Rehman Chishti
What steps are being taken to improve international co-operation to increase prosecutions for human trafficking?
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend has raised this issue before, and it is very important. The new National Crime Agency has a focus on organised crime gangs at a regional, national and international level. The Crown Prosecution Service has officials in other countries working to strengthen capacity and ensure that prosecutions are properly evidenced. Joint investigation teams are an important feature. On 9 April at the Vatican, the Home Secretary set up the Santa Marta group, which is a group of senior enforcement officers from across Europe and the world. This was highly praised by Cardinal Parolin of the Vatican and by the United Nations.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
What use does the CPS make of the National Crime Agency’s database to identify victims of human trafficking in order to ensure that any prosecution that follows takes into account the relevance of the fact that they have been trafficked?
The Solicitor-General
The hon. Lady makes an important point. There needs to be a very strong effort to ensure that the victims of trafficking are treated as such in cases where it is possible that they should be prosecuted, if they are victims rather than the main perpetrators. All the resources of the sort she mentions, and others, are to be looked at. I think she will be pleased when she sees the Modern Slavery Bill in its new form.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What does the Solicitor-General think about extending the period of reflection from the 45 days that are currently allocated to a longer period to ensure that there is full support for victims of trafficking who may then be more willing to be witnesses in any prosecutions?
The Solicitor-General
The hon. Lady will appreciate that that is not a decision for the Law Officers. It is important, however, that all support for victims should be considered within the inter-ministerial group, and I will certainly ensure that it is fully considered. In other terms, I cannot go much further.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Nigeria is the largest source country for people trafficked into the UK. Given that there is widespread fear that the girls who were kidnapped a month ago could become victims of trafficking, what special efforts are the Government making to work with and support the Government of Nigeria, and agencies there, to prevent that from happening?
The Solicitor-General
As the hon. Lady may know, the Crown Prosecution Service has had staff in Nigeria and has worked hard on capacity building. The response to the Boko Haram outrage is being dealt with by other Departments, but I know that right across the House there will be very great concern for those girls and their families, and that is certainly something I share.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to ensure that cases of non-compliance with the law on abortion by practitioners and providers are prosecuted.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service will review any cases referred to it by the police, in accordance with the two-stage test set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. Following observations by the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Health is developing further guidance for practitioners on the procedures to be followed when a woman requests an abortion, and that will be taken into account when future decisions are made about prosecutions.
Fiona Bruce
My right hon. and learned Friend will have seen reports arising from recent freedom of information releases about 67 doctors who pre-signed abortion certificates effectively authorising abortions without ever having seen or had any knowledge of the women involved. He will also be aware that the General Medical Council failed to report those cases to the police. Will he assure the House that they will now be dealt with by means of a thorough investigation and on a case-by-case basis? No one should be above the law, particularly in such cases.
The Attorney-General
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. She will appreciate that, in the first instance, this is a matter for investigation by the Metropolitan police, not the CPS, which, obviously, has no investigative capacity. Should the matter come to the CPS, it will indeed be considered on a case-by-case basis. She will be aware that when this matter has been before the House in the past, it has been pointed out that the essential ingredient is that a doctor has to act in good faith in the advice and opinion they give. If there is evidence that a doctor has not acted in good faith, that will clearly be one of the important evidential components taken into account when deciding whether any prosecution should be brought.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Accounts of abortion on the grounds of gender are of increasing concern to many in this House. Will the Attorney-General confirm that the strongest sanction possible will be brought against individuals, whoever they may be, who are implementing abortion on the grounds of gender?
The Attorney-General
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I want to make it clear—as, indeed, I have made clear in the past—that, on abortion on the grounds of gender, we have to look at the question of the good faith involved in allowing such a thing to take place. The tests have been well explained by the previous DPP and any case in England and Wales would be viewed according to them. To make the position clear: abortion on demand, as it is sometimes described, is not provided for by the Abortion Act 1967.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What is the penalty for such an offence?
The Attorney-General
My hon. Friend takes me gently by surprise. I think it depends on the nature of the offence under the Abortion Act, but my recollection is that the procurement of an abortion illegally is a very serious offence. I will write to him as to the exact penalty.
Mr Speaker
I think the House would benefit from having a copy of the letter in the Library. We are grateful to the Attorney-General.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Department of Health seems to advise that it would be okay if neither of the two signing doctors had actually seen the woman referred for an abortion. Does the Attorney-General believe that that is some distance from a strict reading of the 1967 Act?
The Attorney-General
As I understand the matter, the form exists so that two doctors may make an independent evaluation of whether the abortion is necessary for the health and well-being of the woman concerned. It seems to me, as a matter of logic, that that requires a conscious act of assessment. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to work out whether a conscious act of assessment is going to take place on the pre-signed form.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
3. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to assist development of justice systems in developing countries.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
The Crown Prosecution Service works closely with the United Kingdom and international partners to deliver targeted justice assistance in developing countries of priority to UK national security. It does this on a range of important threats and topics, such as counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, asset recovery and cyber-crime.
Jeremy Lefroy
I welcome that answer. What specifically is the CPS doing in countries that are experiencing high levels of conflict, particularly Afghanistan?
The Attorney-General
The CPS has until reasonably recently had an important programme in Afghanistan, although it is currently at an end. The programme enabled prosecutors to work with local counterparts to deal with narcotics and corruption investigations and prosecutions, one of which was the massive Kabul bank fraud, which saw two former bank chiefs convicted and jailed in March 2013. I visited that project when I was in Kabul.
In addition, there are projects in Nigeria, to which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has referred and which have been complimented by the Chief Justice of Nigeria for speeding up the criminal process. There has also been a major project in the Indian ocean area that has led to 110 pirate cases being prosecuted by CPS prosecutors.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Some crimes committed by British companies or British citizens can be tried in this country or in a foreign country if they are transnational financial crimes committed in a foreign country. What is the Crown Prosecution Service doing to equip developing countries with investigative mechanisms to ensure that more of those cases are tried in the countries in which the offences are committed?
The Attorney-General
It is important to understand that the Crown Prosecution Service has limited capacity, but it has prioritised for co-operation a series of overseas aid projects in a number of countries, including the United Arab Emirates, the ones I have just given, and St Vincent and the Grenadines. In addition, it is worth bearing in mind that the United Kingdom Government use the assistance of non-governmental organisations, such as the Slynn Foundation and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, to provide capacity building as well. Simply to give an example, I have seen projects in the west bank being brought forward with the help of those organisations, so not just the Crown Prosecution Service can help in this area.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
Corruption and bribery are major factors undermining the rule of law in many developing countries. However, the serious fraud squad has yet to land a secure conviction under the Bribery Act 2010. What steps has the Attorney-General taken to ensure that the agency has the resources it needs to investigate these important cases?
The Attorney-General
The director of the Serious Fraud Office is quite clear that, for him, bribery is a priority area. I am fairly confident, from the cases currently being investigated and looked at, that we will see such prosecutions brought successfully. In so far as resources are concerned, if there was any case in which he had difficulty in respect of resources and felt that he was not able to take it forward, he would certainly come to speak to me about it.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
4. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Serious Fraud Office.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
I meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office regularly to discuss the continuing progress that it is making under his leadership. The Serious Fraud Office underwent an inspection by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate in 2012, at my request, and a follow-up inspection of the SFO is currently taking place. I will discuss the outcome of that inspection with the director following publication of the report.
Mr Bain
The year 2010 was the last in which a criminal sanction was imposed on a corporate defendant by the Serious Fraud Office. Does the Attorney-General agree with the Opposition and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, David Green QC, that there should be a review of our highly restrictive laws on corporate liability, with a view to securing more prosecutions?
The Attorney-General
I have great sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. In my judgment, this is an area that ought to be looked at and on which there may, indeed, be a degree of consensus across the House. Of course, if we were to do that, we would also have to make sure that such a process operates in a fair and reasonable way, but I have to say that I have listened very carefully to what the director of the Serious Fraud Office has said, and it seems to me that his remarks have considerable force.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Last week, the work of the Serious Fraud Office was severely undermined when a case it was prosecuting was stayed. What discussions has the Attorney-General had with the Lord Chancellor to address that issue?
The Attorney-General
The case did not involve the Serious Fraud Office, but the Financial Conduct Authority. In the circumstances, that case is not a matter that I have had to discuss with the director of the Serious Fraud Office.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Yes, but the Attorney-General will agree that the rule of law means that no one is above the law. It is, of course, very important that those who commit complex fraud should be prosecuted as the common criminals they are. Will he not therefore take this opportunity to express his dismay at the fact that meticulous cases taken to court by the prosecuting authorities may be stopped because such people cannot be tried, because in turn they cannot be represented, because in turn there is insufficient legal aid? If the Attorney-General wished to have my support in his meeting with the Lord Chancellor to explain the rule of law, I would be very happy to help him.
The Attorney-General
As the specific case to which the hon. Lady refers is before the Court of Appeal and, therefore, sub judice, I will not comment on it. On the general point that she makes, I certainly agree that it is clearly in the public interest that alleged serious crime should be prosecuted. We will have to await the outcome of the case to see whether the resources that are made available in this instance are satisfactory.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to raise awareness of the law relating to contempt of court.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
8. What steps he is taking to raise awareness of the law relating to contempt of court.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)
Since taking office, I have been active in ensuring that the public are better informed of the law of contempt and, in particular, the dangers of online commentary. I have done that in a variety of ways including education, delivering speeches, attending symposia on contempt, and review by asking the Law Commission to look at the law of contempt and legislation. New criminal offences of juror misconduct and amendments to the law of contempt are being introduced in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. Finally, where necessary, I institute contempt proceedings against contemnors.
Mr Buckland
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. I welcome the new offences in the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. How does he see the interrelation between those new offences and the existing law of contempt working? In other words, how will judges be expected to deal with the often knotty problems that come before them when jurors misbehave?
The Attorney-General
I hope that the benefit of this change to the law will be to emphasise the criminal nature of the conduct of a juror who fails to follow the judge’s directions and acts in a way that undermines the fairness of a trial process. At the same time, by providing that it is an indictable offence that is triable by jury, there will be better safeguards for jurors in terms of fairness if they are prosecuted as a result. I trust that the combination of those two things will enable judges to be more robust in their directions to the jury at the outset when explaining that it has an important function to perform, and that that must be performed within the framework that the judge lays down in his directions. In my experience, jurors are, for the most part, animated entirely by good will towards the public interest, so I feel that if we do that, some of the regrettable problems that we have had may be further reduced.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the House will agree unanimously that we are all now considerably better informed.
Henry Smith
In recent years, the use of social media such as Twitter and Facebook to express opinion has increased significantly. What advice can my right hon. and learned Friend give those who are taking part in court proceedings to ensure that, in using those methods of communication, they are not in contempt?
The Attorney-General
The change that we have introduced is that we tweet and post online the advisories that we issue. Whereas in the past those were sent confidentially to the media, they are now accessible in a similar, if not identical, form to individuals who may take an interest in the trial process. We hope that individuals will thereby be warned about the dangers of inappropriate comment and that, as a result, fewer proceedings against those who abuse the system will be necessary.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Hexham can scarcely contain his excitement. I call Mr Guy Opperman.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
9. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to prosecute cases involving female genital mutilation.
The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)
The first prosecution is under way. Lead prosecutors have been appointed for each CPS area. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I have written to Ministers in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health to suggest ways in which the criminal law could be strengthened.
Guy Opperman
I urge the Solicitor-General to take note of the Home Affairs Committee report on this issue and to target the local communities in this country and abroad where this abhorrent crime is increasingly taking effect.
The Solicitor-General
My hon. Friend is right that a prosecution is, in a sense, a failure because we want to diverge from this activity, stop it happening and change minds in communities. That is the essence of what the Government are trying to achieve, although we have to have prosecutions where necessary and we have a strong action plan to achieve them.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.
Ukraine
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on recent events in Ukraine. I will update the House on the situation on the ground, the diplomatic work going on to reduce tensions, the decisions we made at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday, and the approach that we will continue to pursue over the coming weeks.
Presidential elections will be held in Ukraine on 25 May. In the vast majority of the country, preparations are proceeding well under the observation of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The UK is contributing 100 observers to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election observation mission, which is 10% of the total number; £429,000 for the first round of elections. We have also given £1 million in funding so far to the special monitoring mission. I met the heads of both those vital missions in Ukraine last week, and I thanked them for the hard work of their teams in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances.
However, in two of Ukraine’s 25 regions—Donetsk and Luhansk, in the south and east of the country—the situation has deteriorated markedly over the past two weeks. A constant barrage of propaganda by the Russian media, and a steadily mounting death toll, are contributing to an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and division. So-called pro-Russian separatists, led by people who by their training, equipment and behaviour give every appearance of sometimes being Russian special forces, have continued to seize and occupy Government buildings in the south and east of Ukraine, using many of the same tactics that were deployed in Crimea. We have seen intimidation of journalists, abductions and murders. Missiles have been used to destroy at least four Ukrainian military helicopters, giving the lie to Russia’s claim that these are the actions of spontaneously organised local protestors, rather than well-trained, well-equipped professionals.
On 2 May more than 40 people died in Odessa, including many pro-Russian protesters trapped in a building that was set on fire—an act we condemn unreservedly. This weekend, separatist groups staged sham “referendums” on self-rule in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Those polls were marked by blatant fraud, including multiple voting, no proper voting lists, and threats and intimidation against Ukrainians standing up for the unity of their country. The referendums met no basic standards of objectivity, transparency and fairness, and they have no credibility whatsoever. We will not recognise those or any other attempts to undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.
The Government believe that our national interest lies in a democratic Ukraine able to determine its own future, and in protecting a rules-based international system. Therefore, our objectives remain to avoid any further escalation of the crisis, to support the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and to uphold international law.
I visited Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia last week, to show our support at a time when all three countries are feeling acute pressure. We look forward to the signing next month of Georgia and Moldova’s association agreements with the EU, which will also establish deep and comprehensive free trade areas, and are currently under parliamentary scrutiny. I gave our strong support to the Moldovan Government’s plans to sign and implement the agreement, and encouraged them to make more progress on reform and in the fight against corruption. In Georgia I discussed, and thanked the Government for their contribution to, their partnership with NATO.
In Ukraine I met the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and the Head of the National Security and Defence Council, as well as the Governor of Donetsk and two presidential candidates. I encouraged all Ukraine’s leaders to communicate with people in the south and east of the country, and to counter Russian disinformation. I welcomed the steps the Government have taken to launch an inclusive dialogue on constitutional reform and decentralisation, and to offer an amnesty for those who peacefully leave occupied buildings in eastern Ukraine. I assured Ukrainians of our support for the presidential elections, which must be allowed to take place free from violence and intimidation.
On top of our strong support for the work of the OSCE, the UK is providing technical assistance to support public financial management and other reform efforts in Ukraine. We have led the call for the urgent imposition of EU sanctions targeting individuals suspected of misappropriating funds from the Ukrainian state, and we hosted the Ukraine Asset Recovery Forum two weeks ago in London, with the United States and Ukraine, in order to co-ordinate this work.
As I have always stressed, the doors of diplomacy remain open. We continue to discuss the situation with Russia, and the Prime Minister had a long conversation with President Putin on 1 May. We strongly supported the Geneva agreement of 17 April and deplore the failure of Russia to join in implementing it. It is right to try now to revive the diplomatic process, and I support and welcome the efforts being made by OSCE Chair-in-Office and President of Switzerland, Didier Burkhalter. Last week I met him in Vienna, and I held further discussions with him over the weekend and yesterday in Brussels. Last Wednesday, he met President Putin and put forward a four-point plan, including the immediate launch of a national dialogue by the Ukrainian authorities with OSCE support. We have encouraged Ukraine to respond positively to this, and it is doing so. The Government have announced they will hold the first meeting tomorrow, and agreed that there will be both Ukrainian and international mediation in this process.
I strongly believe it is in the interests of all concerned to seize these opportunities to reduce tensions. It is manifestly in the interests of the people of Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk, where there is a danger of the violence growing even worse and many more lives being lost. It is in the interests of Russia, because some events have already moved beyond its control, and because the long-term economic and political costs to Russia of an escalating crisis will be very serious. It is also urgent, because the situation is deteriorating, and the elections are only 12 days away. We look to Russia to exercise its influence and to take every opportunity to restrain those responsible for violence and disorder, consistent with President Putin’s remarks last week that the elections are a step forward.
Yesterday I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council, at which we made it clear that attitudes and behaviour towards the holding of the elections will have particular importance in deciding whether or not wider economic and trade sanctions will be applied. Preparations for these sanctions are at an advanced stage.
There is no doubt that the Ukrainian authorities are making thorough preparations for the elections to be held, and therefore Russia’s willingness to exercise its influence over illegal armed groups in parts of eastern Ukraine will be the decisive factor in whether everyone in the eastern provinces will be able to exercise their right to vote. Since Russia has taken no practical steps to de-escalate the crisis so far, we agreed yesterday to add a new group of 13 individuals and two companies to the list of persons sanctioned by the EU. This is the first time that entities—companies—have been sanctioned by the EU in relation to the crisis.
We agreed to expand the criteria for sanctions. These will now cover not just individuals directly responsible for undermining the security, territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, but also a broader range of individuals and entities linked to separatist and illegal activities. For the first time, the sanctions will also be applicable to entities in Crimea or Sevastopol whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law, and to those who obstruct the work of international organisations in Ukraine.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, we also called on Russia to take effective steps to fulfil its Geneva commitments: to refrain from provocative acts and intimidation, to use its influence with separatist groups to compel them to disarm and to vacate illegally occupied buildings, and to cease its destabilising campaign. We demanded that Russia move its troops away from the Ukrainian border. President Putin said last week that troops were returning to their regular training grounds. However we have seen no evidence that Russia has reduced the huge number of its troops stationed just miles from Ukraine, and in fact Moscow continues to encourage the actions of separatists, including through the state-controlled media.
In addition to these steps, we agreed as Foreign Ministers that the EU will prepare a possible civilian mission in Ukraine, to support capacity building in the fields of rule of law, and judicial and police reform. We maintained our firm commitment to sign the remaining provisions of the association agreement with Ukraine, including the deep and comprehensive free trade area, as soon as possible after the presidential elections.
It is clear that if Russia does not take the path of de-escalation, the long-term cost to it will grow, in an economy already shrinking and suffering massive capital flight. G7 Energy Ministers met in Rome last week and committed themselves to reduce market power and political influence through energy supply. EU leaders will discuss further detailed measures when they meet in June.
The people of Ukraine deserve the right to choose their own Government in a free and fair election, just as we do. They also deserve to be free from external interference and duress and to have the chance to chart an independent future without the debilitating corruption and mismanagement of recent years. They should have every opportunity to be a bridge between east and west, and not to have their country pulled apart by the fanning of hatreds, the wilful sowing of violent disorder, and the insertion of provocateurs and separatists from over their borders.
There is now a fresh opening for Russia, and anyone else fostering violence and tension, to turn back from the brink. The coming days will demonstrate whether they are going to take it. The UK will do everything it can to encourage that and to support the holding of open and fair democratic elections. The international community must continue to be prepared to act with resolve and determination, to persuade the Russian Government to change their approach, to defend a rules- based international system, and to prevent a deterioration of the situation in the wider region.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you and the Foreign Secretary will, I hope, be aware of the reasons why the shadow Foreign Secretary is regrettably not able to be here to respond to the statement. I thank the Foreign Secretary for it, and for advance sight of it.
Before turning to the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on Ukraine, may I first briefly address the recent horrific events in Nigeria? We welcome yesterday’s written statement and the steps taken by this Government, alongside allies, in support of the Nigerian-led efforts to rescue the captured girls. We note that the EU Foreign Affairs Council’s conclusions make reference to the situation in Nigeria. The Foreign Secretary will be aware that in recent days, Members on both sides of the House have been urging that the opportunity be given to debate the matter in Parliament. I expect that those requests have been noted and that the Government will respond accordingly.
Turning to Ukraine, as the Foreign Secretary stressed, the situation in eastern Ukraine is deeply troubling. The violence continues, the death toll is rising and the situation is increasingly volatile. He is right to condemn unreservedly the offence on 2 May in Odessa, where more than 40 people died. He is also right to condemn the referendums in Donetsk and Luhansk on Sunday, which were both illegal and illegitimate. The priority must now be for calm to be restored and further violence to be prevented.
The events over the weekend have created a key moment when the real resolve and intentions of Russia must now be tested. In recent days, President Putin has publicly issued words that some have seen as a sign of possible progress. The international community, however, must judge President Putin not by his words alone but by his actions. He said that the referendum should be postponed. Now, he must condemn the fact that it has taken place. He said that presidential elections might be a step forward. Now, he must help to create the conditions for them to take place peacefully. He said that he has withdrawn troops from the border. He must allow NATO to verify that. He has signed up to the Geneva accord of 17 April. Now, he must help to implement it. If President Putin fails to take the minimum steps required to demonstrate that he is willing to change course, the west must be prepared to increase pressure in the days and weeks ahead.
We welcome the steps agreed at yesterday’s EU Foreign Affairs Council to extend existing targeted measures, including against two Ukrainian companies. On the measures agreed, will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he expects the expanded criteria to result in the addition of further Russian entities to the list of companies targeted by such actions? Will he confirm whether we are taking steps to secure a further meeting between the signatories as a way of trying to make further progress on implementation? We note the Council’s conclusions in support of a further meeting, but in the light of Russian statements that no such meeting is planned, could he set out the likelihood of it taking place?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s remarks on the EU’s preparatory work on possible wider trade and economic sanctions against Russia. Can he provide any further detail on the measures under consideration? Will he confirm that any steps taken by Russia to seek to prevent the peaceful process of presidential elections this month would be deemed a serious escalation, and further evidence of their wilful intention to destabilise the situation in Ukraine further? We welcome the Foreign Secretary’s confirmation that an association agreement is due to be signed with Georgia and Moldova next month, alongside a free trade area.
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that many countries in the region, especially those from the former Warsaw pact and former Soviet Union, but also including our Nordic allies, have a deeper concern that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are not an isolated incident but part of a developing and worrying trend—particularly in the light of claims by the Russian Government about their need to protect Russian speakers or ethnic Russians, irrespective of their nationality or the credibility of any real threat against them. It is little wonder that this has caused apprehension and even alarm. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what discussions he has had with our EU and NATO allies on our response to these developments?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Given that he asked about Nigeria, it may be in order to say one sentence about Nigeria. I issued a written statement yesterday, the matter was discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday and I briefed the Cabinet on the situation this morning. Our team was deployed to Nigeria last Friday and has had meetings over the last few days with the Nigerian security authorities, with the President and with representatives of the families of the girls who have been abducted. They are working closely with the US team and we are in close touch with the Nigerians about what more we can provide as additional assistance. That was a long sentence! I hope it briefly keeps the House up to date on how we are responding to this appalling crime.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed through his statement and questions the bipartisan approach we have to the crisis in Ukraine. He was quite right to say that President Putin and Russia should be judged on their actions, not just on words at press conferences, and that we should be prepared to increase the pressure. The decisions we took yesterday in Brussels are clear evidence of our willingness to increase the pressure. Not everybody expected us to agree further sanctions yesterday, but we felt that in the absence of concrete steps from Russia to de-escalate, it was right to add to the sanctions. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question about whether there could be further extensions to the list of individuals and entities subject to asset freezes and travel bans, yes, absolutely there could be. Because we have substantially widened the criteria, many more individuals and entities can now be added if the circumstances warrant it. There is a real readiness across the whole European Union to do so.
I said in my statement that the wider sanctions—wider economic, trade and financial measures—which we have not yet imposed, are at an advanced stage. I am not able to announce any details, because they would of course have to be agreed in detail at the time. The detailed work has been done by the European Commission in consultation with EU members. It would be desirable to have a further meeting of the parties that took part in the Geneva talks of 17 April. However, it is possible to make progress even without such a meeting, as the work over the last week by the chair of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, President Burkhalter of Switzerland, has demonstrated. We are in close touch with him, and he is working closely with the Ukrainian authorities and is, of course, in regular touch with Moscow to try to make his four-point plan work. I very much welcome his dedication to that task, and I will remain in close touch with him.
On the question of whether the further steps to destabilise the elections represent a serious escalation, yes, that is absolutely right, as was made clear at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday and by Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande in their press conference on Saturday. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to refer to the concerns created, particularly in countries with Russian-speaking minorities, about how Russia has defined its interests and its right, as it sees it, to intervene in other nations in defiance of the UN charter and international law. That is why NATO has made decisions to give greater assurance to our colleagues, particularly in the Baltic states. As he knows, we have reinforced the air policing of the Baltic, including by sending Royal Air Force Typhoon jets, and we will take other steps as necessary.
One of the results of what Russia has done is that at the NATO summit, which we are proud to host in Wales in September, NATO’s responsibilities to ensure the collective and guaranteed defence of its European members, and our readiness to revitalise that and ensure that it remains there in the coming years, will be a topic of great discussion—greater than it would have been without this crisis.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The implications for this crisis go well beyond Ukraine. Putin has effectively said that the protection of ethnic Russians in another country is not a matter for the laws of that country or the constitution or the Government, but for an external power—namely Russia. This is a fundamental challenge to international law. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not enough just to de-escalate on Ukraine; we need assurances from the Kremlin that Russia will not interfere in any other sovereign state simply on the basis that ethnic Russians live there? Otherwise, sanctions must continue on that very basis.
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is quite right that huge principles are at stake here. That is why the reaction in the United Nations has been so clear and overwhelming: in the votes held in New York, Russia was entirely on its own in the Security Council, with China abstaining. Russia was outvoted in the General Assembly by 100 votes to 11 precisely because the issues at stake are exactly as great as my right hon. Friend describes them. That is why I underline the long-term cost to Russia—in the reduction of energy market power, the reduction of influence in eastern Europe because of populations turning against it and NATO reinforcing its responsibilities for the defence of its eastern members. All of that flows from what Russia has done in recent weeks.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I first welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and commend the approach he has adopted? May I ask him about the position of the German business lobby, part of which has been arguing, with the assistance of the former German Chancellor, against any kind of wider economic sanctions? The position of Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier has been commendable, but what assessment does the right hon. Gentleman make of Germany’s understanding that it is in its interest to ensure that if necessary, sanctions, including business sanctions, are strengthened if there is no other way of securing some observation by Russia?
Mr Hague
I think that is understood in Germany—certainly by their ministerial and political leaders. I had a long discussion with Mr Steinmeier before yesterday’s Foreign Affairs Council, and he fully joined in bringing about the decisions we made at that Council, while Chancellor Merkel expressed Germany’s strong view at her press conference on Saturday. Of course it is understood across Europe that wider sanctions against Russia will have some damaging consequences in Europe. I have said before that if we come to that point, those sanctions will be designed to have the maximum effect on Russia and the minimum effect on European economies—but they would have an effect on Britain, France and Germany. The plans developed for such sanctions include measures to be taken by Germany, and the triggers for them are the ones that I described earlier. We regard Germany as working closely with us on this issue.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Is it not clear that, far from being deterred by the range of sanctions measures taken by the west, the Russians continue to escalate the crisis with impunity—not least by the deployment to Crimea of some of the most sophisticated weaponry, including, I understand, the latest K-300P Bastion-P mobile anti-ship missile systems? In those circumstances, how on earth can we expect Russia to honour and respect the outcome of the forthcoming presidential elections in Ukraine?
Mr Hague
Russia certainly has the involvement I pointed out in my statement, but I also argued that, given the longer-term consequences for Russia, the escalating sanctions, and some of the tragedies that have happened, such as in Odessa, it is in Russia’s interests to co-operate with the initiative that the OSCE chair has launched, which we support.
Russia is capable of adjusting its approach. As others have said, President Putin’s actions will be much more important than his words, but his words last week, when he described the elections as a step forward in Ukraine, represent a substantive change in the Russians’ position. Their previous position was that Yanukovych was still the legitimate President of Ukraine. Clearly, if the elections are a step forward, the Russians have changed their position in accepting a new president rather than the old one. The Russian position has very much created this crisis, but it is not an immutable position.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The apparent contrast between what President Putin has been saying and what Sergei Lavrov appears to be saying—that the referendums must be accepted as an expression of opinion and taken seriously—is leading many people to believe that this is just a cynical tactic on the part of the Russian Administration. Does the Foreign Secretary share their fear, and, if so, does he believe that their analysis is recognised by our European partners?
Mr Hague
Yes, I think so. Again, the test is what actually happens. There is a strong school of thought which holds that Russia’s call for the sham referendums not to go ahead, although they went ahead, was intended more to disclaim responsibility for them than actually to discourage them. The Russians have reacted by saying that they respect what they see as the will of the people, which was expressed in such a massively anti-democratic fashion as the referendums, but they have not reacted in the same way as they did after the sham referendum in Crimea, by annexing the territory concerned. They clearly see Donetsk and Lugansk in a different light from Crimea, and what they want to do is different. It is terrible, but it is different, and we will continue to judge them by the differences in their actions.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
My right hon. Friend paints an understandably grim picture. At the risk of over-dramatisation, I would say that this has all the characteristics of a powder keg. President Putin will not adopt diplomacy until he is satisfied by what he has achieved or is forced to come to the table, which renders the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) all the more significant. Is my right hon. Friend entirely confident that the countries of the European Union will be unanimous in any further extension, and, in particular, that the United States will form part of any such extension, given that this is a matter for the Atlantic alliance as a whole?
Mr Hague
So far, the co-ordination between the United States and the EU and between EU nations has been very strong, and we in the UK play an important role in ensuring that there is that co-ordination. Any discussion behind closed doors often features a variety of views—as one would expect, when 28 EU nations are involved—but so far we have had no difficulty in reaching unanimous agreement on the sanctions that I have described, and that includes the decisions we made yesterday. Russia should not underestimate the willingness of the European Union to add further measures, including more far-reaching measures if necessary, and to engage in close co-ordination with the United States of America in that regard.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
The first broadcast in Ukrainian by the BBC World Service was in June 1992, and the last was in April 2011. Given that the Foreign Secretary himself has referred to the constant propaganda from Russia, will he discuss with the BBC whether it is time to reinstate that service?
Mr Hague
I think that point is worth considering. As I discovered in Ukraine last week, there is a constant demand for other media and for impartial media, given the behaviour of Russian-controlled or Russian-sponsored media, and we are considering ways in which that can be encouraged without controlling it ourselves. Of course, there is now a greater proliferation of television channels and forms of communication of every kind, so the answer is not necessarily to replicate exactly what we had before, but in many parts of eastern Europe there is a need for impartial information and news, and that is something that we must not neglect.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that if the situation in Ukraine deteriorates or another emergency occurs elsewhere which requires the House to sit during prorogation, the issue of a royal warrant will be required? Will he explain how that procedure would work in practice?
Mr Hague
It is no simple matter for the House to sit during prorogation, which is one of the reasons for making my statement today. Indeed, it would be unprecedented. Nevertheless, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 provides a means for the House to sit in extreme circumstances, if there is a threat to the United Kingdom. The Leader of the House will be much more familiar with the details than I am, but I think that my hon. Friend should bear in mind that the threshold for the assembly of Parliament during prorogation is very, very high.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
While Russia undoubtedly has responsibility for the crisis that has occurred, is it not a fact that many people feel an attachment to Russia, particularly in eastern Ukraine? Whoever wins the presidential elections on the 25th of this month, will there not be a responsibility—a very important responsibility—to reach out to the large number of people who, rightly or wrongly, feel a greater attachment to Russia than to Ukraine?
Mr Hague
According to reputable surveys, even in the eastern parts of Ukraine there is little evidence that people want to be part of Russia, although of course there is much evidence of disaffection in regard to politics, their own former leaders in Kiev, and so on. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that reaching out and inclusivity within the whole of Ukraine are vital, and that will be a very important task for whoever wins the presidential election. I have now met five of the presidential candidates—including all the leading ones in Ukraine—and have given them that advice, as well as the advice that they must secure an end to the whole culture of corruption and cronyism that has prevailed in Ukraine in the past.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
Whatever we may think about Russia—and I for one am distinctly unimpressed—the Russians are people with whom we must do business. I have in mind the negotiations over Iran. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to avoid institutional hostility and keep the lines of communication open, although the Russians do not make it easy for us?
Mr Hague
“Unimpressed” is a good bit of British understatement from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My right hon. Friend is right: it is important to keep channels of communication open. That is what I do with Foreign Minister Lavrov, and that is why the Prime Minister has spoken to President Putin several times during this crisis. Even as we speak, our representatives are sitting with Russia in the E3 plus 3 negotiations with Iran, and working constructively together on one of the world’s other great issues. We will make every effort to continue to do that, because it is in the global interest and in our national interest.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that we do not simply suspect that Russia is behind much of the armed insurrection in the east of Ukraine, but hold the country squarely responsible? If such tactics were attempted in a NATO member country, they would trigger a full article 5 response.
Mr Hague
There is no doubt about that. I hope that I made it clear in my statement, but I am happy to restate our certainty about Russian involvement in the violence and disorder that have taken place in eastern Ukraine. What has happened does not have the characteristics of spontaneous protest. The level of equipment, training and co-ordination involved demonstrates that there is outside intervention. Ukraine is not, of course, a member of NATO, but I am sure that were such things to happen in a NATO member country, it would be able to invoke article 5 of the NATO treaty.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Following on from the question of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), in affirming our support for NATO and article 5, what other countries apart from ourselves and the United States have sent troops or planes to exercise in the Baltic states and Russia?
Mr Hague
The United States did the last rotation of Baltic air policing and we are contributing to it now, as my hon. Friend knows. The French have deployed four Rafale aircraft which are based in Poland. Denmark has deployed four F-16 aircraft to Estonia and there is work on further maritime deployments as well. So a variety of countries are involved in these exercises and policing.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the deployment of UK forces to front-line NATO states, and I also welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visits to Georgia and Moldova as well as Ukraine, but what assistance and help can we give, particularly to Moldova, because what might happen in Transnistria at some point could be a repetition of what has happened already in Crimea?
Mr Hague
This is a very important point and it is one of the things I went to Moldova to discuss with its Government. Of course, the opening up of a closer economic relationship with EU countries is a major opportunity for them. Already, when Russia stopped buying Moldovan wine, which is one of its principal exports, the EU opened up to Moldovan wine. We may have to be ready to do that in other areas of the economy as well. The Moldovan Government made a number of requests to me on my visit, and I am thinking positively about all of them and discussing them with my EU colleagues.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
While in no way condoning Mr Putin’s actions, I just wonder if the EU has played into his hands. Should not peace and reconciliation be our objective now? Should we not in this context reassure Russia that we have no intention of dragging Ukraine into our orbit by Ukraine joining NATO, that any free trade associations with the EU will be balanced with free trade associations with Russia, as Mr Putin proposed, and that there should be full devolution for east and west Ukraine?
Mr Hague
We have always made it clear—and I make it clear again now, as I did in my statement—that we have always seen Ukraine as having strong relations with east and west and that it has never been our objective to pull Ukraine in a direction that means it loses its important economic and political relations with Russia. I think that that message is very clear and we are clearly supporting, in the work of the OSCE, decentralisation in Ukraine in a way that is acceptable to the whole of its population, including its regions. I therefore think the problem has lain in the perception of Russia—an inaccurate perception—rather than in the actions of western countries.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Foreign Secretary say something about NATO’s longer term intentions? Since 1990 we have had constant expansion of NATO and that in turn has encouraged an equal and opposite reaction within Russia. Does he not think it is time to stop the expansion of NATO and to try to bring about a peaceful central European region?
Mr Hague
NATO is not an alliance designed for offensive purposes. NATO is designed for the defence of the countries concerned and there are free sovereign nations who aspire to join NATO. What is more, their aspiration to join NATO is one of the positive influences on them to adopt strong democratic systems and free and open societies. So the expansion of NATO has been a very healthy development for many countries in the world. I think it would be wrong to bring down the shutters and say, “This is not available to any more countries at any stage.” Becoming a member of NATO is a demanding process, but I think it would be wrong to confine NATO to those countries that are already a member of it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The NATO summit is four months away. Various NATO members have reaffirmed article 5 already. Would it not make sense for all NATO members to reaffirm article 5—that an attack on one nation is an attack on all—at this time, as the NATO summit is four months away?
Mr Hague
I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no doubt about that: the commitment of all the 28 members of NATO to article 5 is absolute. This is a treaty obligation, and this is something they all take very seriously, but to show, through our exercises, our deployments and our planning for the future, just how seriously we take it could very much be something to which the NATO summit turns its attention. That is not just up to us; it is up to all our colleagues in NATO, but I think that, in that sense, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I support the UK deployments to the Baltic states and those of other NATO countries. Without wanting to provoke Russia, do the Foreign Secretary and the North Atlantic Council accept that it may well be necessary, in order to give real substance to the article 5 guarantee, to have longer-term deployments of NATO troops in some of those post-Berlin wall accession countries?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely it could be, and over the next six weeks there will be further meetings of NATO Defence Ministers and of NATO Foreign Ministers, which I will attend in the run-up to the summit we will host in Wales. We have not felt it necessary to take decisions yet about such longer-term deployments; that will depend on how this crisis develops, but we absolutely do not exclude the possibility of doing exactly as the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
What assessment has been made of the impact of Russia’s actions on its own economy, and how much more damaging would the proposed further trade sanctions be over and above these self-inflicted wounds, which presumably Russia thinks are a price worth paying?
Mr Hague
Russia’s actions have contributed to its mounting economic problems. One of the main international forecasts for Russia’s economic growth has been downgraded for the coming year from 2.3% to 0.2%. Russia’s Finance Ministry has announced that its economy shrank in the first quarter of this year. The flight of capital from Russia so far this year is now thought to be of the order of $80 billion. Russia’s bonds have been downgraded one level so they are now only one level above junk status. These things have all happened in the last couple of months, and are therefore partly linked to this crisis. This is why I emphasise some of the long-term costs to Russia and repeat that it is in Russia’s interests now to find, with the OSCE and the rest of us, a path of de-escalation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement, and particularly the increase in the sanctions against Russia. The Foreign Secretary will know better than most Members the personality and character of President Putin. Is it not important to make it absolutely clear—he has partially done this—that sanctions will increase in severity week after week, month after month? If we look at the experience of Iran, we see that it is when we get into banking and financial services sanctions that things really start to hurt.
Mr Hague
I agree. We have taken this graduated approach but we have never hesitated to add further at each stage, and we demonstrated that again yesterday. I say again that Russia not should underestimate our determination to go further if necessary. The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of financial measures. Some of the measures taken by the United States have already had some financial effect, but it would be possible to go much further than that, including through what the United Kingdom could do.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
The Kremlin, the leading members of the Duma and the Russian media have consistently sought to undermine both the authority and the credibility of the interim President of Ukraine and the Government in Kiev. Given that Russia is a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, both of which will be observing the elections next week, what assurances has the Foreign Secretary been given by his Russian counterpart that the Russians will recognise those elections, endorse the result and recognise the authority of the elected President to speak for all the people of Ukraine?
Mr Hague
As I am sure my hon. Friend anticipates in his question, we do not have any such assurance from Russia, but of course we do have the one change in Russian policy and attitude to the legitimacy of the elections, which was President Putin’s statement last week that the presidential elections are a step forward in terms of national unity in Ukraine. This demonstrates the importance of the election observation missions, of the elections being demonstrably free and fair, and of the maximum number of people in Ukraine being able to participate in them, because all those things will contribute to the legitimacy of the outcome. I suspect that Russia will be faced with a very legitimate electoral process in Ukraine and will then have to decide its attitude to it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary believe that Russia did not expect sanctions to be put in place? What is our bottom line for coming to an agreement with Russia? Is it the return of Crimea to how it was? Does he believe that is going to happen?
Mr Hague
We have not recognised, and will not recognise, the annexation of Crimea. What we are seeking through OSCE diplomacy now is de-escalation rather than an already prescribed end state. National dialogue in Ukraine in return for Russia acquiescing in elections in Ukraine is really what the OSCE is pursuing. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether our bottom line is everything going back to normal in the future while Crimea remains annexed by Russia, my answer would be no. There will be permanent consequences from what has happened in Crimea and ever more serious wider consequences—the sorts of consequences I have talked about—if Russia continues on this overall path.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I visited Odessa recently and came across an EU office which was rightly focusing on reporting on the situation in Moldova, but was not reporting on local developments. Given the disjoint between actual events and how they are sensationally reported in the press, should there not be better independent assessments, possibly used by offices such as those of the EU, to counter the pro-Russian propaganda about which the Secretary of State has spoken?
Mr Hague
That is a very important point, and it relates to part of the importance of further expanding the OSCE special monitoring mission. We might also deploy—and we are in favour of deploying—a civilian EU mission to advise on judicial and police reform, but what my hon. Friend is talking about is very much the job of the special monitoring mission. We are supplying further monitors from the UK, with the capability to build up to having 500 monitors in total. Their objective reporting will be very important in the coming weeks to international understanding of the situation.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Both the current Government in Kiev and the Foreign Secretary in his statement have pointed out that the referendum in Donetsk region was vitiated on the grounds that no valid register of electors is available. That being the case, how do they propose to hold valid presidential elections in the region on 25 May?
Mr Hague
Of course it is true. The election observation mission, which I visited last week, is satisfied with the arrangements so far in 23 of the 25 regions of Ukraine. In Donetsk and Luhansk the picture is mixed—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman is driving at—and in some parts of those two regions the legitimate civil authorities have not been able to make preparations for the elections. That remains the case with 12 days to go, so Ukraine is faced with having a presidential election in which the vast majority of people in the country will be able to take part—but not all of them, thanks to Russian intervention.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
The newly appointed chief executive of Ofgem confirmed to me this morning that in his opinion gas prices in the UK would go up if there was an interruption to the supply of gas coming through Ukraine to western Europe. In the light of that, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that extensive work is taking place within Government to model worst-case scenarios, so that we can build resilience in this nation against the unlikely event of that scenario occurring?
Mr Hague
Yes, the Department of Energy and Climate Change is very conscious of this issue, and my right hon. Friend the Energy and Climate Change Secretary attended the G7 Energy Ministers meeting last week. I would add only that threats to interrupt the supply, with consequences not only for Ukraine but for countries beyond Ukraine, would be a further incentive for countries across Europe to reduce their dependence on Russian supplies in the medium to long term. Russia needs to bear that in mind as well.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the many alarming features of the situation in Ukraine is the likelihood that large amounts of arms and weaponry have fallen into the hands of not only separatists but criminals, gangsters and who knows who else. Is it not in Russia’s interests to ensure that it does not have on its borders a state where there is insecurity and armed gangs under nobody’s control? What steps can we take at the European level to try at least to monitor the entry of weapons from that part of the world into the rest of Europe?
Mr Hague
That is a very important issue. Part of the plan being put forward by the OSCE involves a national plan for the disarmament of illegally armed groups within Ukraine. The Ukrainian authorities have also been playing their proper part in implementing the agreement at Geneva by collecting thousands of illegally held weapons—when I last looked the figure was more than 6,000. There is therefore a national programme and an internationally supported programme for collecting those weapons, but of course the people fomenting disorder in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk are in no mood at the moment to give in their weapons. It will be in the interests of all concerned, including Russia, that they ultimately do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has always sensibly said that in this day and age a British Foreign Secretary has to deal with the world as it is, not as he would like it to be. Given the evidently huge support, rightly or wrongly, in Crimea for being part of Russia, is it the policy of Her Majesty’s Government that the annexation has to be undone or that the annexation is somehow regularised, ultimately to Ukraine’s satisfaction?
Mr Hague
It is an annexation that we cannot recognise. It is not an issue we can resolve today, but we cannot recognise this and we will bring further penalties into force, through the European Union, on companies trading from Crimea and on travel from Crimea. That is a further package yet to be agreed, but we will agree it in the European Union. The annexation has long-term consequences. Of course we have to face the possibility that this could become a long-term frozen conflict, whereby a place treated by Russia as a part of Russia is not recognised by us as part of Russia. This does not prevent us from working on the wider efforts to de-escalate tensions in the rest of Ukraine, and it is important for us not to be prevented from doing that by the Crimean issue.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has made it as clear as he can that wider EU trade and financial sanctions are likely, but given the speed with which the situation is deteriorating and the loss of life, can he give us any idea of just how imminently those sanctions might be ready to be implemented?
Mr Hague
Sanctions can be added to at any time and on any day when it is necessary. Yesterday, following the developments of the past few days, we added to the sanctions at quite short notice, and we widened the criteria for the future so that the European Council can decide at any time to impose the wider trade and economic measures if that becomes necessary.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend recently had with the US Secretary of State with regard to American support for free and legal presidential elections in Ukraine on 25 May?
Mr Hague
As my hon. Friend can imagine, I am in constant touch with the US Secretary of State, John Kerry. Our approaches are very closely aligned, as they are among western nations in general. I will be seeing him on Thursday to discuss our approach, particularly how we support the legitimate authorities in Ukraine after the presidential elections, so my hon. Friend can be assured that we are working very closely with the United States.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Foreign Secretary for his strong stance on Ukraine. Just last week, I visited the Ukrainian protest and rallying point opposite No. 10 Downing street. The frustration of those present was palpable, and they referred to the annexation by Germany of the surrounding countries before the second world war. Will the Foreign Secretary reassure the rank and file Ukranians, both inside and outside Ukraine, that the west is doing all it can to turn Russia from its ambition and aspiration?
Mr Hague
Yes, I can. I think that the hon. Gentleman will gather from my statement that we are taking a wide range of measures, and we are stepping up those measures while all the time leaving open the door of diplomacy. That is, as I pointed out, in the interests of all the people of Ukraine, as well as those of Russia. In the absence of concrete steps to de-escalate by Russia, we will continue to increase the sanctions and the pressure on Russia, with all the consequences that I talked about earlier.
Points of Order
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sadly, you do not control when we have debates, but there is a regrettable tendency by Government now to have more and more statements on big Foreign Office issues, such as Ukraine, and fewer and fewer debates. Ukraine is a massive issue of war and peace, yet we have had just one three-hour debate on the subject. Members had only five minutes in which to speak. As the Father of the House told me, he barely draws breath in five minutes. We cannot deal with the complexities of the issue in that time. I regret to say that statements allow the Government to dominate the proceedings completely. Can you use your influence, Mr Speaker, so that we can have a proper, full day’s debate on this major international issue?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I understand where he is coming from on the matter. It is not entirely fortuitous that he should raise this in the presence both of the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House. I say just two things in response. First, I am sure that he would be the first to acknowledge that the Foreign Secretary is absolutely fastidious about coming to the House when it is appropriate to do so, and he has always volunteered statements without any pressure being required to be applied to secure that outcome. Secondly, I rather agree that it would be good if we could have a more substantial debate on these matters. As he rightly says, with sadness—a sadness that I share—it is not in my hands; it is in the Government’s hands and I hope that it will happen sooner rather than later so that these matters can be explored in the detail and at the necessary length that are required.
Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that there is one, but, as I always operate according to my standards rather than those of the right hon. Gentleman, I will be generous to him. Let us hear from him and see whether he has anything worthwhile to raise.
Mr Speaker
It is not the same problem at all. It is a different issue, and different principles apply. I was hopeful that the right hon. Gentleman might have a valid point to raise, but it was a question of a triumph of optimism over reality.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on the following matter.
On 4 April, Monitor, the sector regulator for health services in England, issued new guidance for the commissioning of radiosurgery services. That new guidance clearly updates and modifies the guidance issued in 2013.
The new guidance means that NHS England’s ban on NHS patients being treated by the gamma knife machine at University College hospital, London is not sustainable. In the past couple of weeks, I have asked three questions of the Secretary of State, and I made it clear that they related to the new guidelines that were issued on 4 April. I stated:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to section 3 of the guidance issued by Monitor on the commissioning of radiosurgery services on 4 April 2014”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 245W.]
I then led into my questions. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), answered all three questions in the context of the outdated Monitor guidelines. I understand that that might be an error on her part, but it means that my legitimate questions remain unanswered, and I do not know how else to get an accurate response to oral and written questions. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how to redress that.
Mr Speaker
I am deeply grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of this point of order. Moreover, I understand why she is frustrated or aggrieved that what she thinks is a clear and specific question is not being answered. That said, I am sorry to inform her that there is nothing in what she has said that engages the responsibilities of the Chair. I must therefore advise her to undertake the short journey from here to the Table Office where I have every confidence that she will get good advice on the best means by which to chase down this matter. If that proves to be unavailing, she might consider having a friendly and genial chat with the Leader of the House, who I am sure will wish to assist. If that gets her nowhere, I have the feeling that she will probably come back to me. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.
Prohibition of Unpaid Internships
13:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 19 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit unpaid internships; and for connected purposes.
The principle of this Bill is to encourage responsible practice which does not inhibit social mobility and limit experience of competitive working environments to the few who can afford to work without pay. It cannot be disputed that unpaid internships are an impediment to social mobility when, according to a YouGov poll, 43% of 18 to 24-year-olds believe unpaid internships act, or have acted, as a major barrier to getting a job. It is alarming that they have been allowed to continue for so long, especially as Governments of all colours spend huge amounts of time and money to ensure that the school and university system gives a fair opportunity to all. By turning a blind eye to this unfair internship practice, many school leavers and graduates never get the chance to use their education to its full potential.
Indeed, in Alan Milburn’s report into social mobility in 2012, he found that more than 30% of newly hired graduates had previously interned for their employer, rising to 50% in some sectors, underlining the fact that interning is becoming a prerequisite for graduates looking to access professions. That leaves thousands of young people in a Catch-22 situation, unable to get a job because they do not have the experience, and unable to get experience because they cannot afford to work for free.
There needs to be continuity through the entire journey of education, college or university and into the world of work. I am sure that many Members from all parts of the House would baulk at the idea of children getting access to a decent education only if they have a wealthy background, but that is the situation we are allowing to continue in the early employment market today. Indeed, many Members across this House are complicit in encouraging it, but they are not the only ones. Despite the coalition agreement to tackle internships, and the strong guidance from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, many employers still routinely advertise for unlawful internships on a widespread scale—from fashion to journalism. Just last year, the National Council for the Training of Journalists found in its 2013 report that 82% of new entrants to journalism had done an internship, of which 92% were unpaid.
It is not just those who do not have the money who are being deprived of life skills. Internships are also not beneficial for those who are lucky enough to have other means of support, who cruise into positions where there is no competition owing to the costs involved.
By widening the opportunity for all, the job market becomes genuine and everyone is forced to up their game to secure the best internship or, failing that, to settle for a position most suited to their skill level in preparation for a step up. In other words, it makes everyone experience the real world, where people are appointed to jobs on merit, rather on the basis of the circumstances into which they were born. I draw a huge amount of experience from my own early employment doing manual work in engineering factories and, later, as a kitchen and bathroom fitter, which gave me something that an unpaid internship simply does not provide—a self-sufficient existence brought about by merit and hard work.
At my local comprehensive school, my sister and I were taught that hard work and determination would help us make something of ourselves in the world of work. Our supportive parents made us work part-time jobs around our education—something that taught us the real value of money, that we had to do to run our first cars and that taught us how to budget, a valuable lesson for later life. I left home for university with a sense of aspiration to achieve my dreams, knowing that it would be my own hard work and determination that delivered those dreams.
Unpaid work was simply not an option for me or my sister, and it should no longer be a barrier to ordinary kids, as we were, to get into the workplace. In the 21st century, it is time to ban the practice of unpaid labour. Of course, that is no small task, as the Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that there are more than 100,000 unpaid internships. It is exactly the scale of the problem that makes it time to act. There is a need to act to protect young people as they get into work, as well as to support the businesses that are doing the right thing.
A step change can be achieved through better enforcement of the national minimum wage, as has been introduced by the Government, alongside constructive dialogue with employers. Those who defend unpaid internships as a way of helping squeezed businesses are guilty of taking a short-sighted and ill-informed approach, as fair internship schemes are better for employers, because they allow them to access a wider and more diverse pool of talent. Furthermore, not only are jobseekers’ opportunities being limited by unpaid internships, but businesses offering free positions are undercutting their rivals who abide by the moral and legal code and pay the minimum wage.
The Low Pay Commission, for its report in 2013,
“received a substantial volume of evidence suggesting a growth in the terms ‘internship’, ‘work experience’ or ‘volunteer’ to denote unpaid activities that look like work and to which the NMW should apply”.
The minimum wage has got to be the way forward to make unpaid internships a thing of the past and to create fair intern positions, in which interns are treated in a manner that fits the role that they are carrying out. After all, most interns have set hours and responsibilities, and they are therefore workers, who should be entitled to the national minimum wage.
To those who say that extra legislation is not needed, because of the existing legal framework of the minimum wage, I point out that there has not been a single prosecution for non-payment of the national minimum wage in the past two years. There have been only eight prosecutions since the law was passed in 1998. We need to ensure that the law protects social mobility, while acting as a credible deterrent to businesses that would not want to be caught jeopardising someone’s future for a bit of cheap labour.
Since the first report by Alan Milburn in 2009, much of the debate surrounding the issue has recognised the link between unpaid internships and declining social mobility. The report described that internship model as
“a back-door for better-off, better-connected youngsters”.
It is therefore heartening that a naming-and-shaming approach towards the back door is now being heeded and implemented by a range of employers, such as Ernst & Young and KPMG, and employer bodies, including the Public Relations Consultants Association, the Arts Council and the Royal Institute of British Architects, which actually expels members that use unpaid interns.
When international organisations, including the European Commission, OECD and the UN are all concerned about the effects of unpaid internships on social mobility, it shows that we have already been too slow, as a global leader, in responding to the practice. Let us move forward with common sense and tackle the weak spot in employment law whereby workers are not clearly defined, allowing employers to exploit the loophole. At no point in national minimum wage legislation is a “worker” defined sufficiently. It has also been noted that advisers at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are not consistent in their advice about when the national minimum wage is warranted, and when it is not.
A common-sense approach would be to ensure that no work experience is to last longer than four weeks without being paid; at that point, an individual should become an intern and be paid the national minimum wage as a minimum. The change would safeguard opportunity and only requires using powers under section 41 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. With the help of Intern Aware, a leading charity that supports the ending of unpaid positions, it has been identified that the Government could give clarity to interns, those on short-term work experience and employers. The change would require secondary legislation and therefore not interfere with existing national minimum wage rules, but it has the potential to designate all individuals who have undertaken a period of work experience for more than four weeks to be a “worker” under the National Minimum Wage Act, thereby ensuring that they are properly treated and recompensed.
I urge the Government to act at the earliest opportunity. I ask for support from both sides of the House. Until amended to make the rules suitable for the modern-day working environment, we are compromising all the progress made by this Government to enable a fair education system for all, regardless of background. It is time that we not only practised, but legislated, what we preach. In a nation such as ours, no one should be expected to work for free. Work should be rewarded. Those who oppose the Bill need to be able to explain to young people why only their wealthy peers should have access to sought-after careers. The Bill moves us into the 21st century, leaving the remnant of the “who you know, not what you know” culture firmly in the history books.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I oppose the Bill and I want to give my reasons briefly. Most people who know me might think that I would support the Bill, but the unintended consequence would be to damage some important opportunities for young people in our country. I absolutely agree with the overall purpose of the Bill, but it will not hit the target. I am against exploitation and I am for fairness and social mobility, but I am also in favour of young people getting the experience that they need to enter the workplace. We need a balance.
I chair the schools to work commission and listened with great interest to Jim Hillage from the Institute of Employment Studies, who pointed out that, according to the latest high-flyers research programme, a survey of 18,000 students found that students—any student—who had any work experience at all were three times more likely to get a job. Not only were they more likely to get a job, but they were more likely to stay in a job. They got confidence and a feeling of comfort from joining the work force.
Many of us have offered short-term work experience in our offices to young people whom we want to encourage to get to know the world of work and to understand how Parliament works. The emphasis on only having a paid intern in this place, however, has put MPs off taking on more people in their office. Last year, I paid a full London living wage to an intern, and that was good. I wanted to do that and I want to do it more often, but it squeezed out a lot of young people to whom I used to offer short-term work experience while paying their expenses and even the expenses of staying in London.
There are some problems in going down this route, because in some ways it sends the wrong message to many enlightened employers who go out of their way and know that a young person needs a start—a start that often involves a couple of weeks in a business environment. I do not want a heavy-handed approach that says we should have nothing but paid interns because of where that will put those great employers in the public and private sectors, including those in small and medium-sized companies. Most people in this country will end up working not at the large companies, the big accountancy firms or the big engineering and chemical companies but for small and medium-sized enterprises. I want us to have a more positive approach through a charter on the fair treatment of young people doing work experience that everyone understands and that they sign up to.
I am positively against people who cynically exploit young people and take them on unpaid for long periods of time. We all know, and I agree with the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell on this point, that that is the downside. Where we disagree is on whether we should ban any internship that is not paid. I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I welcome Mr Speaker’s initiative in this House but that very good initiative of taking on young interns, rewarding them and so on is for only 10 people. Is it not about time that even in this House of Commons we said that we should open up such opportunities to lots of young people who otherwise would not have the opportunity? Let us have a proper scheme. Let us talk to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and say that we all need the money to take on three young people every year in our offices and to have a fair way of choosing them.
I could take on a local doctor or accountant’s son or daughter every week. We all know how the system works and, I think, most of us are against it, so I go out of my way to find young people with no other chance at all of pitching up from Huddersfield in West Yorkshire to work in this environment. I work very hard to go out and find them, recruit them, bring them in and give them that chance. Obviously, I can often only offer a week or two, but I do not want us to do anything heavy-handed today that suggests to us or anybody else that the easy approach is to ban all unpaid experience. I know that part of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill addresses that point, but not enough of it does. I do not want such a message to go out to the outside world.
We should be very careful. I have noticed that in some areas the campaign for a ban on unpaid internships is shrinking the number of employers who are willing to give a child their very first chance. I hope that colleagues will not support this approach, which is too heavy-handed, and will join me in saying that we should take positive action that encourages more people to offer work experience and that is designed so that it does not simply bring someone in and make them do a bit of computer work, shredding or filing. Internships, if they are good, should be well organised, well scheduled and a positive and life-enhancing experience. If young people get that experience, they get the opportunity to start their career in a positive way. I oppose the Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23).
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to public services, guidance or access to data | Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the first day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to consumer credit or debt management; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; amendments to Part 1 | The moment of interruption on the first day |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Parts 2 or 3; amendments to Parts 2 or 3; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration | Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration on the second day |
Consumer Rights Bill
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 281 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 281 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Guidance for statutory regulators
‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish guidance based on the work of the Implementation Group.
(2) Guidance published under section (1) shall—
(a) detail how consumers should be informed of their rights and at what point this should happen;
(b) ensure that traders have the information they need regarding their responsibilities under this Act and other consumer rights legislation;
(c) define what may be a “reasonable time” for consumers to secure refunds, repairs or replacement, or repeat performance; and
(d) specify the sanctions available to enforcement agencies in cases where the guidance has not been followed.
(3) Within six months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice in relation to the exercise of any and all the functions set out in the guidance, subject to the provisions of subsections (5) to (7).
(4) Any person exercising such a function must have regard to the code in determining any general policy or principles by reference to which the person exercises the function.
(5) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice under subsection (3), he shall prepare a draft of the code, and shall lay the draft before Parliament.
(6) Where the draft laid before Parliament under subsection (5) is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code.
(7) A code issued under subsection (6) shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.’.
New clause 3—Access to data
‘Schedule [Access to data] has effect.’.
New clause 4—Guidance based on the work of the implementation group
‘(1) Within three months of Royal Assent of this Act, the Secretary of State shall publish guidance based on the work of the Implementation Group.
(2) Guidance published under subsection (1) shall—
(a) advise on the period that a trader may retain sums paid by the consumer for services not yet supplied by the trader, where it is the consumer who dissolves the contract;
(b) further to paragraph (a), advise on the terms under which traders should manage the interest on such sums and make provision for the return of this interest to the consumer; and
(c) advise on whether it should be permissible to charge for a guarantee where that guarantee does not offer any undertaking to the consumer additional to their rights as set out in this Act.’.
New clause 5—Independent consumer advice
‘Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall produce guidance setting out requirements for all statutory regulators to report annually on the provision of independent advice which is free at the point of delivery, and to make recommendations on ensuring consumers’ rights are protected.’.
New clause 10—Powers of the Information Commissioner: nuisance calls
‘(1) The Data Protection Act 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 40 (Enforcement Notices), leave out subsection (2).
(3) In section 55A (Power of Commissioner to impose monetary penalty), leave out subsection (1)(b).’.
New schedule 1—‘Access to data
Information for consumers
1 The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament within six months of Royal Assent of this Act setting out how consumers will have access to the information they require in order to make informed assessments of prices, charges and fees.
Supply of customer data
2 A report under paragraph 1 shall include details of how the Government intends to—
(a) make regulations to require all regulated persons to provide customer data relating to transactions between the regulated person and the customer, as set out in section 89 (Supply of customer data) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013;
(b) enable third parties to make requests for customer data under section 89(1)(b) of that Act; and
(c) ensure customer data is provided in a form which enables the customer or third party to assess whether the price they are paying for a service is reasonable, which should have regard to section 89(7) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
Designation of regulated persons and regulatory bodies
3 A report under paragraph 1 shall—
(a) review which traders, including the activities of any government, or local or public authority, as defined by section 2 of this Act, shall be considered a regulated person under section 89(2) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013; and
(b) identify a relevant regulatory body to undertake the duties set out in paragraph 4 of this Schedule.
Guidance for regulated persons
4 A report under paragraph 1 shall include details of how the Government intends to require regulators of services which are provided by regulated persons, as defined in section 89(2) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to produce guidance on the implementation of section 89 of that Act.
5 Guidance produced for regulated persons under paragraph 4 shall include—
(a) how regulated persons should provide customer data;
(b) details on the ownership of customer data which shall include, but is not limited to—
(i) that customer data generated directly, at any point in the course of a contract, is owned by the customer;
(ii) that prior to any decision requiring the transmission of data in a format where the customer can be identified to a third party, direct consent of the customer as owner of the data must be secured; and
(iii) how regulated persons should recognise and publicise that such data is owned by the customer;
(c) how customers may consent to their data being shared with third parties under section 89(1)(b) of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013;
(d) specify sanctions for traders who are not able to confirm the consent of the customer to sharing their data;
(e) measures to limit the amount that may be charged for any such single request for data on behalf of multiple customers;
(f) how regulated persons, who hold data on customers on behalf of any government, local or public authority, can use this information to secure social and consumer benefits; and
(g) how regulated persons, who hold data on customers on behalf of any government, local or public authority, can contribute to a report under paragraph 7.
Access to information: public services
6 (1) The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament within six months of Royal Assent of this Act on how the Government intends to ensure that all consumers of public services, who have a direct role in commissioning them, are able to access information regarding any consumer contract or consumer notices which may reasonably be understood to apply to them.
(2) A report under sub-paragraph (1) shall have particular regard to—
(a) the access to information that consumers of public services require; and
(b) how access to information can ensure greater transparency on the work of traders.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, “public services” means the work of any government, local or public authority or traders offering services on their behalf.
Access to information: annual report
7 (1) The Secretary of State shall produce and submit to Parliament an annual report setting out an analysis of the cumulative costs and benefits of Government decisions relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests.
(2) A report under sub-paragraph (1) shall in particular address the effect on—
(a) household consumption;
(b) vulnerable households; and
(c) any other subjects as the Secretary of State decides.’.
Stella Creasy
We come to the Report stage of the Consumer Rights Bill. I am minded of the words of the great English churchman Thomas Fuller, who said that our lot was to be born crying, live complaining and die disappointed. Of course, as true Brits, we know that that approach can be best encompassed in a “tut”, but we see the Bill as offering much more than a “tut” for people who have been ripped off. We see the potential of the Bill to free us of that particular malaise, and with that in mind we have tabled a number of amendments that we hope will receive the support of the House.
We believe that the Bill should be subject to the tests—that they should be performed with reasonable care and skill—that it sets for goods and services. At the moment, it is found wanting, and that is why today we are looking for a repeat performance and hope of speedy redress. The new clauses speak to that and in particular to the Opposition’s approach to consumer rights, which should not be only about dealing with problems when something has gone wrong, but, when done well, could avert problems. For that to happen, consumers need three things—more information, strong advocacy and speedy forms of redress.
In introducing the Bill, the Minister has opened a veritable Pandora’s box, given how some of its clauses will be perceived on the consumer landscape in the UK. We are mindful that hope lies at the bottom of Pandora’s box, and we hope with the new clauses to bring hope for how consumer rights legislation could work. Let me explain what I mean. I want to turn first to new clause 3 and new schedule 1, which new clause 3 brings into effect. The schedule refers to the first principle to which I referred—information. How do consumers get the information that they need to make the right choices for themselves the first time? We know that having access to more information is vital to empowering consumers.
The Government’s research, “Better Choices, Better Deals”, argues that if consumers were able to use price comparison sites more effectively, they could gain £150 million to £240 million a year. That is why the Opposition welcomed many of the ideas and intentions behind the midata project to give consumers more access to their information in a portable and accessible format. In Committee we expressed concern that, despite the project, four years on, it is not really working. There is a lack of information coming forward to consumers. The Minister defended the slow progress of the midata project, telling us that taking action now would prejudice the results of a review of the project that she has commissioned, and she did not think that that would be beneficial to the programme or, ultimately, to consumers. We have tabled the new clause and schedule because we fundamentally disagree. We want to go much further.
Currently the midata project covers four areas of consumer data, but we think that the power in the new schedule offers the potential for a framework for improving consumer and citizen access to data in a way that can transform outcomes and improve our consumer markets; that would be good for business and good for Britain.
We do not understand why the Government gave themselves the power, under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to enact the midata project and yet have not done so. The first thing that new schedule 1 does, therefore, is put that power into effect to ensure that consumers get the information they need, in a portable and accessible format, about a key utility bill.
Every time we click, we create wealth—whether we are giving our contact details or browsing online, companies are harvesting information that drives their marketing and product development. Datasets such as store loyalty cards, medical records or tax affairs are an important and revealing resource for both the public and the private sector. Facebook is making more money than any of us can dream about from the content that we are creating. That stream of data should not be one-way. Citizens and consumers should have access to those data in a meaningful way, which allows them to start calling for the kind of products and services that they want.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a number of key and critical points about the potential power of data in both the consumer and the public sector. Has she been able to detect a strategic or coherent approach to data access from the Government in respect of the Bill?
Stella Creasy
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing in the digital review that she is conducting for Labour, which reflects precisely what she is talking about—a strategic approach. That stands in stark contrast to the shambles that we have seen in relation to the care.data project, the tax return data project and some of the amendments that have been tabled to the Deregulation Bill.
This Government talk about data being like oil—a resource that can be exploited to make new industries and potentially huge profit margins. If we are creating it, however, we should also benefit from it. That is why in the new schedule we have set out a framework to enable that. We want to make sure that the British public are firmly in charge of their own data, so that they benefit from those data and how they can be used.
This should happen not just in the private sector, through the midata project, but in the public sector. It is important that we flag that up, not least because when the Bill was originally proposed, and in Committee, the Minister tried to tell us that it had no relevance to the public sector. She told the Committee:
“The purpose of the Bill is to look at the rights that consumers have in their relationships with business; it is not to look at any rights that consumers have when it comes to public services.”––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2014; c. 66.]
Only when we questioned her in the Committee did she admit that the provisions of the Bill affect the public sector. That gives us the opportunity to ask how we can ensure that consumers and citizens have access to data to make good choices in both the public and the private sector.
So far the Government have admitted that the provisions cover valuable benefits such as personal health budgets, university tuition fees and child care vouchers. Given the framework that the Government have set out, we think that the licence fee, perhaps controlled parking zones, bus fares and possibly even water and sanitation services—directly provided services that consumers pay for and for which they therefore have a contract with the provider—should also be covered.
There are concerns about access to services in the public sector, which the amendments would address. One in five of us has experienced a problem with public services in the past year, but a third of us who have experienced a problem with the public sector do not complain. We are what the Public Administration Committee has called a nation of “silent sufferers”. “More complaints please!” is the title of its report. That is not what is coming forward from the public.
As we all know, good complaints help to generate feedback. They therefore help to make services in the public and the private sector more responsive. I estimate that two thirds of our casework as MPs is about public service decisions gone wrong. Much of that is to do with what we would recognise in the private sector as information asymmetries—people not knowing what services they are entitled to and therefore getting a raw deal.
New schedule 1, which is inserted by new clause 3, is about the lessons that we can apply from the midata project to information across our lives in both the public and the private sector. We know that sharing data directly with citizens can help reform public services and improve outcomes, but we also recognise that the relationship that people have with the public sector is different from their relationship with the private sector, so regulators should look at how to make it work in both fields. We recognise that we are both providers of public services, as taxpayers, and also users and consumers of public services in our daily lives.
The benefits that come from releasing data in the public and the private sector are manifest. We need a clear framework to make sure that it is not only those with the loudest voices or the largest wallets who are able to access the benefits, whether it is giving patients the information they need on their health care to manage conditions for themselves, improving parent and pupil involvement in schools, or communities designing their own cities. The benefits from this process could be legendary, but the Bill does little to move that debate forward. Our concern is that as currently drafted the Bill could create further inequalities, as those who understand their rights in the public sector are able to use them but those who do not cannot.
Let me explain how we think the issue could be addressed. New schedule 1 is about access to information, allowing people to make the right choice the first time. New clause 1 acknowledges that choice is not enough to guarantee a good outcome. People often need an advocate, an expert or an adviser with whom to work through the options and decide what works for them. New clauses 1 and 5 both introduce a clear commitment to advocacy in the public and the private sectors to help improve the relationship betweens service providers and service users.
In the public sector, advocacy can not only improve outcomes but cut costs. A study in Nottingham showed that 60% of cases that a local advice provider was working with involved public sector decisions made badly the first time. Involving advocates reduced the number of complaints by 30%, reducing the burden on the public sector and improving outcomes for the users of services. It is a win-win scenario. The more challenge there is in the public sector, the more information and the more advocacy in the private sector, the more we can make our markets work better and our services serve our people.
However, it is clear from the work that we have done since the initial conversations in Committee that that approach, ethos and understanding of what the Bill could do for the public sector, how information could make a difference, and how advocacy could be beneficial, has not been progressed in Government discussions. It is worrying to us on the Opposition Benches to discover that, having admitted that the Bill will cover sections of the public sector, the Minister has not had talks with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about what that might mean for the licence fee.
Many of us might have watched the Eurovision song contest on Saturday night. Many of us might have had comments about the coverage—some supportive, some negative. Under the Bill, it could be argued that we have a right to a service performed with reasonable care and skill, so if we did not think that Graham Norton was the most erudite host, we could make a complaint. In theory, under the Bill, we would have a right to a repeat performance, a price reduction or a refund. That has huge ramifications for the BBC and for the licence fee, yet no conversations have yet taken place between DCMS and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on the matter. We are also told that the Minister has not spoken to Ministers in the Department for Education about how the Bill covers child care tax vouchers, yet she admits that it does. Clearly, the Bill opens up the possibility that some parents will be able to use such rights to challenge the provision of nursery services in their areas, whereas others who do not know their entitlement will not.
We know that the Minister has at least spoken to the Department of Health about how the provisions will affect personal care budgets. She has, apparently, had regular informal contact. Given that many of us know that the silent sufferers are often incredibly vulnerable people, frightened of complaining about a carer because they are frightened of what will happen next, regular informal contact, I would wager, does not cut it when the Bill could transform what happens.
The Minister has, however, spoken to some people in her own Department about tuition fees. Unfortunately, the Minister with responsibility for higher education tells us that no meeting has taken place with external stakeholders about how the Bill will affect tuition fees. That might be because in Committee the Minister was not entirely sure whether students were consumers—having spoken to students about their consumption patterns, I think we can agree that they are when it comes to paying tuition fees. That is why, when the Minister responsible for higher education tells us that there have been no meetings with student representatives, higher education providers and universities on the implications of the Bill, we are rightly worried. The new clauses are needed to put in place a framework to understand those implications.
Many of us may remember some of our university lectures, some positively, some negatively. The fact that we would have the right under the legislation to complain that they had not been prepared or delivered with reasonable care and skill opens that Pandora’s box. That is why the National Union of Students has said that it is concerned about how the Bill is drafted and the possibility that legal redress could be easier and more effective for students with greater resources, whether in terms of finance or access to legal services.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making some powerful points about the rights of consumers and public service users. Does she not find it strange that parties that are so keen to turn passengers and patients into consumers now do not seem to understand the implications of giving potential public service users consumer rights?
Stella Creasy
I absolutely agree. We all want to see an empowered citizenry. We believe that would be positive for our public services by encouraging feedback on how services work for the public. But the risk with the Bill as it stands is that those with sharp elbows will do well and those without will simply be left behind. I think that is why both Citizens Advice and Unison, which after all has considerable expertise in some of these relationships, support the amendments and say that they want to see further debate and scrutiny on how we ensure that we do not have a two-tier system, with only those services that have a direct relationship getting better service responsiveness because of such legal rights, and only those people who can access services and complain getting those rights.
Trading standards has told us how it often refers people to what it calls the “sausage machine” of local council complaint services. Under this new legislation, it is not clear whether trading standards would then be able to pick up issues. That could lead to real inequalities in both the public and private sectors without advocacy and clearer information rights, which is why we have tabled the amendments.
I also want to draw colleagues’ attention to paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, which we also believe will tackle nuisance calls. We recognise that the misuse of data is as important as the analysis of data and that there is a need to put in place a proper framework on that. Many of us will have had constituents complain about nuisance calls and texts. Indeed, only this afternoon, while waiting for this debate, I received a text telling me that I could get compensation for an accident that I have not had—perhaps it came from the Government Whips.
However, we know that there is a gap at the moment where it is hard for the Information Commissioner to prove that there has been a lack of consent, where companies themselves will not be clear about whether they have the consent of the person they have bombarded with text messages and phone calls. In one six-month period alone, 71% of landline customers said that they had received a live marketing call and 63% said that they had received a marketing message. We also know that the Information Commissioner receives about 2,500 complaints a month about unsolicited text messages. We want to close that loophole. The all-party group on nuisance calls also recommended tightening the rules on consent, and Ofcom has said that it agrees. Indeed, the Government’s own report on the nuisance calls action plan said that we should do more on consent.
Paragraph 5 of new schedule 1 would enable fines to be imposed for those people who do not show that they have the explicit consent of consumers to send them that kind of marketing message. We think that is entirely proportionate and hope that Government Members, even if they are scrabbling to understand quite what the Bill would do in the public sector, will recognise the issue of nuisance calls and act accordingly to address it. I would also encourage those among us who speak up for taxpayers—perhaps Gary Barlow should take note—to support new schedule 1.
Stella Creasy
Indeed. “Take that” is the answer we would give on many of these things.
New schedule 1 looks at the cumulative impact of Government policy on households. Currently, among European nations only Estonia has a worse proportion of people struggling to pay their energy bills than the UK. Yet one of the issues that have been debated across the House is the impact of some of the long-term planning on the infrastructure building projects for our energy system in this country and the consequences for energy bills. Indeed, in November last year the National Audit Office published a damning report stating:
“Government and regulators do not know by how much overall expected new investment by the private sector in infrastructure will increase household utility bills and whether bills will be affordable.”
We know that the concept of affordability is contested by some, and we know from the evidence the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave the Public Accounts Committee that it does not even have a target for affordability in relation to water bills. Yet many of us will have seen at first hand in our constituencies how people are struggling with those basic costs of living. We think that the Government should be able to publish an analysis of the impact of their own policies on the cost of living. Paragraph 7 of new schedule 1 asks for such a report to be provided by the Treasury. I am sure that Government Members who support transparency will want to support it.
I will say a little about new clause 2, which concerns implementation. After all, we think that with this framework we are offering the Government a way forward on information and advocacy, but we also recognise that it is no good having rights written on paper if they are not a reality in practice. One of the concerns that came up repeatedly in Committee—many of the Opposition amendments that the Government opposed related to this—is how consumers will actually access rights in practice. When will they know that they have a right to a repeat performance? At what point will the BBC tell us that we have a right to a price reduction because we did not like its commentary?
Those are all questions that the Minister said would be dealt with by the implementation group. It became a mythical beast in our minds, because it will cover so many issues, from point-of-sale information, information on remedies open to consumers, how businesses should be informed of these rights, the length of time before people can get a refund, the time limits people would get on a repair, replacement or repeat performance, or even testing consumers’ understanding of their rights.
Time and again the Minister said that we should leave it to a body of experts, which we believe—we are not entirely sure—includes organisations such as Citizens Advice, Which?, the Trading Standards Institute, the British Retail Consortium and even the Financial Conduct Authority. They are worthy bodies indeed to look at these issues, but we had some concerns in Committee, having seen some of the minutes of their meetings, which are not very frequent. Despite their good works, any recommendations they make would not be statutory guidance. Therefore, new clause 2 simply states that the recommendations they make about the rules on how the Bill should be implemented should have meaning, that they should have real teeth, that it is no good saying that it would be good for consumers to be informed of their rights if that does not actually happen at the coal face or at the shopping till.
In proposing this first group of new clauses, we are trying to make this Bill what it could be. We are trying to find the hope at the bottom of Pandora’s box. We are trying to ensure that consumers have access to the information and advice they need to make good choices the first time around. The old model of politics, in which progress depends on centralising these abilities, will no longer work with our communities. The task at hand, we believe, is to give the public more control and more power over their lives to enable them to make the choices that they want to make first time. As it stands, the Bill will leave citizens to navigate services alone, without the resources, either money or skill, to struggle to make them work.
We want to do something different. We want to reform the public sector by devolving power to people, investing in the prevention and co-operation they need to make services work for them, to stand shoulder to shoulder with every consumer and every citizen, not blunting the efforts of those who already fight for services, but enabling more people to give the feedback about the kinds of services we want in the public and private sectors. We believe that new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 and new schedule 1 will enable that framework to be put in place, and we hope that the Government will respond positively to the points that we have made as a result.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 10, which stands in my name. Although I support paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, it is not just the lack of consent that I think is the problem with nuisance calls. My new clause has been promoted by the huge growth in nuisance calls and messages. In fact, on each occasion when I have been out on the streets recently, at least three people have come up to me to talk about the explosion in unsolicited contacts and said, “Can’t something be done?” There is a weak data protection regime and consumers feel that they have lost control of their personal information.
I am convinced that if I was on a desert island the first call I would receive would be someone offering me a loan to get off the island. For people in financial difficulties, in particular, nuisance calls and text messages offering high-cost credit, such as payday loans or fee-charging debt management services, can lead to the temptation to take out products or services that, if mis-sold—they often are—could substantially worsen their situation.
StepChange has done some research that shows that 1.2 million British adults have been tempted to take out high-interest credit as a result of an unsolicited marketing call or text. There is legislation to protect consumers against these practices. Unsolicited promotional electronic messages are banned, but the ban is widely flouted and inadequately enforced. My new clause would lower the threshold for firms breaching the Act. At the moment, the Information Commissioner’s Office can issue enforcement notices against these companies only if “damage or distress” can be demonstrated. It can also issue monetary penalties to firms misusing consumer data or breaking the laws on electronic communication under section 551 of the Data Protection Act, but only if
“substantial damage or substantial distress”
to the consumer can be demonstrated.
I believe that those thresholds are far too high. They should be lowered so that firms can be issued with enforcement notices or fined for breaching the Act without the Information Commissioner having to demonstrate “damage or distress” or
“substantial damage or substantial distress”.
The current thresholds have resulted in a situation where it is next to impossible for the Information Commissioner to enforce penalties against these firms. A recent tribunal decision went against the Information Commissioner when a £300,000 fine was overturned despite the defendant sending hundreds of thousands of illegal text messages.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I want to speak in favour of new clause 1 and new schedule 1, which call for independent advocacy and citizen involvement in decision making in public services. I commend my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for proposing them.
I wholly welcome the extension of these rights into the public sector. It is only right that people should be able to seek redress when things go wrong or to expect their complaints about service failure to be treated seriously. It is certainly right that people should have more power to influence decisions made about them by other people. I worry that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, the Bill in its current form will not allow that to happen as readily as it should.
A number of Labour councils are part of the Co-operative Council Innovation Network, of which I am very proud to be the patron. The councils involved are working together to find new ways to hand power to service users so that they have more control over the services they use and the people and organisations who provide them. That approach is already demonstrating that it can improve outcomes for citizens. One of the lessons those councils have learned is that handing people more power, on its own, is not enough. Many people who rely heavily on public services do so because they are extremely vulnerable or socially excluded. They lack the capacity or experience to exercise the power made available without additional support to allow them to do so.
Let me offer an example. Personalised budgets are a fantastic opportunity to give more control to people who rely heavily on care services such as home helps, day care, or assistance in managing chronic health conditions at home. Yet many of the people offered personalised budgets feel poorly equipped and supported properly to manage them. Research shows that this is one of the reasons why there has not been a higher take-up of personalised budgets, and that is a missed opportunity. The answer is to put in place the support that people need to exercise control. For someone not used to handling relatively large budgets, it can be a frightening experience to be asked to do so, particularly at a time when their health may be failing. Bringing budget-holders together with experienced advocates—people who are on their side and can help them to understand and articulate their real needs—can transform the situation. We need to build people’s capacity to participate in order to make this power meaningful.
Another example is children’s services. Many service users are children who have experienced severe trauma or disruption in their lives. They do not, of course, have any professional experience themselves of running things—they are, after all, children—but that does not mean they cannot take more control, as long as appropriate support is on offer. When I was elected leader of Lambeth council in 2006, the authority’s children’s services were rated by Ofsted as among the worst 3% in the country. By 2012, Ofsted rated exactly the same services as the best in the country by a considerable margin. One of the key reasons for that transformation was the active involvement of children in shaping their own services—but providing those children with support was fundamental in making that process work. That is why the new clause is so important in improving the Bill.
We also need much greater openness and transparency of information and data in public services. People cannot participate in decision making if they do not have full access to information. I was bitterly disappointed to see Croydon council, which covers the constituency I am proud to represent, failing to understand this. It took a decision to sell off the borough’s public libraries to a private developer in secret, behind closed doors. Doing it in that way fuelled public concern that the deal was not in the best interests of residents. That feeling appeared to be justified when the buyers, Laing, quickly sold the libraries on to another developer, Carillion—at a considerable profit, one would assume, but unfortunately we are not allowed to know.
These are public resources and public services, and decisions about them should be transparent and open; the public should be able to participate. At the council I led, I introduced a very simple open data charter which stated that the authority would publish everything that it was not legally prevented from publishing. Once we did that, the public started asking for data in different formats so that they could use them to scrutinise services more thoroughly and propose better ways to run services, and alternative providers to run better services. That approach helped to create community-run parks, a community-run youth services trust, more tenant-led housing estates, and even a new council website designed by the residents who were using it.
However, citizens need support to take advantage of these opportunities, or the potential for change that they offer will never be realised. We need the new clause and the new schedule if we want these powers really to work for everyone and not just for a privileged few.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I should like to speak in favour of new clause 2, which seeks to clarify how the Bill will be implemented and how consumers will be informed of their rights.
In particular, I want to ask some questions of the Minister about the implications for rail services. It was welcome news in Committee when, in responding to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), the Minister confirmed that the National Rail conditions of carriage will be refreshed to provide stronger provision for consumers in order to make them consistent with the rights set out in this Bill. The operators’ trade body, the Rail Delivery Group, has said:
“The Conditions of Carriage are under review. They will be published by the end of the year and will be fully compliant with the Consumer Rights Bill.”
It also said:
“They’ll be more consumer-friendly in terms of the language used”.
That will be a huge improvement from the passenger’s point of view.
I have a number of questions about how this implementation will be carried out. Do the Government intend to conduct a wider review of the passenger protections in the National Rail conditions of carriage? They could use the Bill as an opportunity to strengthen passenger rights where, for example, the train operator fails to provide passenger assistance, which is so important for disabled passengers; where someone finds that the seat reservations on their train are not being honoured; where there are planned engineering works that the operator could have known about in advance but has not informed people about; or where someone finds on arriving at the station that part of the journey they expected to be by train will be on a replacement bus service.
If the intention is to carry out this wider review of the National Rail conditions of carriage, why has Passenger Focus so far been excluded? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no watering down of passenger protections in the National Rail conditions of carriage that may be additional to the protections provided in the Bill? All the consumer protections in the Bill are subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and the public have had an opportunity to influence them and have a view on them. Changes to the National Rail conditions of carriage are not usually subject to such public consultation, but this is an unusual circumstance. Will the Minister clarify whether the proposed revisions to the National Rail conditions of carriage to make them consistent with the Bill should be subject to public consultation?
I have a few more questions about implementation and the consequent need for further guidance, as set out in the new clause. The National Rail conditions of carriage do not apply to light rail systems such as the Docklands light railway or the London underground, where separate conditions of carriage are set out by Transport for London. Have the Government made an assessment of the various light rail conditions of carriage? Do Ministers plan to exclude them from the rights in the Bill, as with the National Rail conditions of carriage, or, indeed, to do something different about them?
There are also a number of issues concerning equivalent protections and how they will be met. At present, under the National Rail conditions of carriage, a passenger is entitled to a full refund only if they decide not to travel after the service is cancelled or delayed or when a reservation is not honoured and the ticket is unused. Passengers are entitled to partial refunds if they decide not to travel for other reasons, but they are subject to a £10 administration charge. Passengers who start their journey are entitled to compensation of only 20% of the price paid, and only if their service is more than an hour late. Although some rail operators offer a more generous delay/repay compensation scheme, that is not set out in the national rail conditions of carriage.
If passengers are entitled to a repeat performance, as set out in clause 54, on the grounds that the journey was not in accordance with the information given about the service, as outlined in clause 50, will they now be entitled to a full refund? Could that therefore be the stronger provision relating to compensation for consumers that the Minister mentioned when she responded in Committee in March?
I also want clarification on another issue. When passengers are affected by planned possession works by Network Rail, rather than the train operator, they will clearly be receiving a substandard service, but will they be entitled to compensation? I do not think they have such an entitlement at present.
Obviously, I am speaking in my capacity as a Back Bencher rather than from my position on the Front Bench. Many of our constituents are frustrated by their experiences on the railways, and they want to know that the rights set out in the Bill in relation to rail fares and services are being addressed by the Minister and that there is an opportunity to strengthen consumer protections in such an important area of policy.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I want to talk briefly about new clause 3 and new schedule 1, particularly because they relate to the private sector and one of the three sectors named under the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has said, this country, like the rest of the world, is undergoing a revolution in data in terms of their volume, richness and accessibility, and, in some ways, their associated risks. There is also a rapidly changing market in price comparison, and the hon. Lady has referred to some of the benefits that can accrue from that. The development of that market is not entirely benign and is certainly not without cost. There are two opposing forces: consumers’ ability to compare prices and services side by side tends to bring prices down, but the nature of the marketing—the branding land grab, the cost of advertising and particularly the pay-per-click auction model on the internet—tends to drive costs and therefore prices up. It is certainly true, however, that price comparison has great potential to make markets work better. I am very proud of everything the Government are doing with midata to help make that a reality.
One market that does not work at all is one of the three mentioned in the 2013 Act: retail banking current accounts. The actual cost to consumers of having a current account is, on average, £152 a year, but nobody we talk to, including informed consumers and even Members of this House, knows that. Whenever we talk about “free” banking, we should use inverted commas, because, of course, there is no such thing as free banking. If consumers could see how much they are actually paying, both explicitly in behavioural charges and implicitly through forgone interest, the retail banking market would work better because there would be more diversity and competition.
Critically and perhaps even more importantly—this touches on some of the new clauses and amendments we will debate later—the fact that people do not know how much their banking is costing them inhibits the development of new retail banking products. Such products include budgeting bank accounts—so-called jam jar accounts—for which people have to pay a fee, but through which they are much less likely to tip into debt, because they make it easier to budget money and also that tiny bit easier to save a small amount.
New clause 3 is not necessary because progress is already being made. The powers already exist.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but the powers already exist under the 2013 Act. The Government are looking for voluntary progress, which I think is the right way to proceed on reforming markets. A review of progress is due about now, and I hope the Government will continue to do what they are doing. They have the reserve right to push for more and have said explicitly that if not enough is being done, they will consult on the wording of regulations in order to make those markets work better compulsorily. That is the right approach, as opposed to jumping the gun.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 4, which is in my name. Unlike other Members present, I was not familiar with this Bill until recently. I did not serve on the Bill Committee. The Minister may recall that I asked her an oral question two or three months ago about issues relating to warranties and additional warranties sold by retailers. My question arose not only from a specific constituency case, but from the related concerns of a number of constituents who have contacted me over the past three or four years.
In her response, the Minister drew my attention to this Bill, which was in Committee at the time, and suggested that I should look to it for comfort, so I did. I also read the Committee’s debates on warranties. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) is in her place and I recall from my reading of the proceedings that she raised some issues relating to electronic goods. She mentioned her experience in the past and I think she said that the situation may have improved since then. However, I tabled new clause 4 because of an experience that demonstrates that that is certainly not true in all cases.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has already referred to the implementation group, which seems to be the catch-all for everything that is going to happen at some unspecified point in the future. I understand that the intention behind the group is that it will ensure that legislated rights are translated into something meaningful for consumers. It is entirely right and appropriate for the new clause to seek to ensure that the implementation group should provide, at a specific point after the Bill receives Royal Assent, guidance on some specific issues.
Constituents tell me that what they are actually sold often turns out to be very different from what they were told they were being sold, particularly on additional or supplementary guarantees and warranties. A retailer will often tell them that what they are being sold will enhance their consumer protection and enjoyment of the product and provide them with a safeguard. It then turns out, however, that there is nothing more in the warranty than that to which they are already legally entitled or what is included in the manufacturer’s own warranty.
Yvonne Fovargue
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just that the warranties are sometimes mis-sold, but that companies such as BrightHouse in the rent-to-own market make it compulsory for new customers to take out a warranty when they may already have their own household insurance on those goods?
Tom Greatrex
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about that specific market. I am also aware, as a result of talking to my constituents, that there is almost an expectation on people working for other retailers to sell these warranties, even if it is not obligatory for consumers to have them. In some cases, they even receive a commission for doing so.
That leads me to my concern about a specific case, in which what was written in the signed document was clear, but the way in which the warranty was described and explained to the consumer certainly was not clear and was very different. In that case, a constituent of mine bought a television set from a high street electrical store. He was told that the additional warranty he took out—on top of the manufacturer’s one—would entitle him to a new set if anything went wrong within the five-year period. His television set broke down during that period, but he found in the small print that he was only entitled to a repair or a replacement, which was exactly the same as the manufacturer’s guarantee. That meant that, on the basis of what he was told in the store, he had paid what for him was a significant amount of money every month for something that was effectively worthless.
Fundamentally, I believe that retailers have a duty to consumers not to sell them products that they know to be worthless, which appears to be the case if a warranty simply duplicates existing rights. Warranties very often apply to electronic goods that are significantly expensive, so we can see how a consumer could easily be persuaded to pay for an expensive warranty scheme that delivers no extra benefit, as the retailer is often probably very well aware. That is an area on which the implementation group should certainly undertake some work. Some provisions in the Bill—for example, clause 30—relate to warranties, but they do not seem to cover that point.
In that case, I took up the issue with both the company and my local trading standards office. The trading standards office was very sympathetic, but the long and short of it is that such practices are entirely legal, and there is nothing it can do other than to advise people to be more aware next time. That will not be much comfort for someone who has spent a significant amount of money on something that does not meet their expectations or provide the protection to which they think they are entitled. I of course understand that this problem is not new—it was raised several times in Committee as well as previously in the House—but the implementation group should be charged with ensuring that it is dealt with, and the new clause presents an opportunity for that to happen.
My new clause also addresses the management of deposits. I tabled it after a local small business approached me about an account held with a telecommunications firm— TalkTalk. As many hon. Members will be aware from their constituents, telecommunications contracts for small businesses often require quite sizeable deposits. My constituent was asked to provide a bond of some £900.
The size of such deposits has been a subject of interest for the regulator. I draw the House’s attention to the outcome of a dispute between Apple Telecom Europe Ltd and BT on the level of security deposit required for services, in which Ofcom stated that it was unwilling to determine what an appropriate deposit might be. In the light of that, it is clear that the regulator is not currently prepared to step into that space, but the size of some deposits places a clear responsibility on policy makers to ensure that the rights of the consumer or service user are protected.
After terminating the contract, two issues arose for my local business: first, TalkTalk was in no hurry to return the deposit; and, secondly, when it did return the deposit, it did so without any interest. On the first point, TalkTalk made it clear that it would hold on to the bond beyond the end of the agreed three-year contract. Effectively, it intended to hold on to the bond or deposit until my constituent ceased to be a customer, at which point the onus was on my constituent to write to TalkTalk to request the return of the money. My sense is that the responsibility in that scenario is the wrong way round. It places all the obligation on the consumer, and all the potential benefit of not meeting the obligation on the retailer. Because the retailer was not required to return a bond in a timely fashion, it is clear that my constituent missed out on substantial interest payments on the £900. Given that such contracts may well be for significant lengths of time and may then be renewed, the money amounts to a significant figure over time, particularly for small businesses; it is far from trivial.
My new clause addresses both concerns by requiring the implementation group to report on the length of time for which a retailer may retain a bond after the termination of a contract and on the payment of interest on the money. It would not be unduly burdensome for the company to be required to place bonds in a separate account, the interest on which could be returned to the consumer at the end of the contracted term. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the significant precedents for interest to be paid on money that is held. For example, solicitors are required to place moneys they hold on trust for a client in separate interest-bearing accounts, as is made clear in the professional code of ethics given in the Solicitors Regulation Authority handbook. Equivalent provisions cover other professions in which businesses hold money on trust—for example, an accountant who holds funds for a client to settle a forthcoming tax bill. Beyond such examples, it is clear that there is a substantial licence for abuse. There have recently been concerns in the energy market about moneys retained from excessive direct debit payments. One of the Minister’s colleagues in another Department described it as unacceptable, and said that something needed to be done about it, and the same case can be made in relation to my concerns.
I am conscious that the guidance and regulation arising from the work of the implementation group will not apply retrospectively, and so will not be of direct benefit to those involved in the two cases that I have outlined. However, their experience carries important lessons for all of us to bear in mind, and their cases might and probably will be repeated along the same lines. For that reason, I implore the Minister to look sympathetically at new clause 4. I hope that she will see that it is about enhancing the rights of consumers who, in many regards, have been and are being given poor advice and are not getting the service that I am sure she and all other hon. Members would expect.
The work of the implementation group will obviously be significant, given the number of times that the Minister has referred to it in Committee, and I am sure that she will mention it again this afternoon. It is important that the implementation group get on and deliver something, as the many people who have been following the progress of the Bill will expect. The new clause represents just one way in which there is a very clear path for the implementation group to follow in taking some action to benefit consumers and small businesses across the whole of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
We have had quite a wide-ranging debate, which has been the case during many of the discussions on the Bill, because it covers so many issues. It is telling that the Opposition have tabled very few amendments; today, we are mainly discussing new clauses that attempt to add provisions to the Bill.
I want first to pause for a moment to reflect on the Bill, which has generally been accepted across the House as a good piece of legislation. It will benefit consumers—all consumers—and by setting out key consumer rights in one place, it will empower consumers. As we discussed several times in Committee, well-informed and confident consumers can experiment and shop around, which drives innovation, boosts competition and creates growth. The entire suite of consumer law reforms are estimated to be worth more than £4 billion to the UK economy over 10 years. Including the impact on consumers, business and the public sector, the Bill will generate £1.5 billion and the associated secondary legislation will generate more than £2.7 billion of benefit.
Some public services will attract rights and remedies under the Bill, as we discussed at length in Committee. That will be the case if there is a contract between the consumer and a public body for the provision of products that are within its scope, because the definition of a trader is wide enough to capture the activities of any Department and local or public authority. Consumers of public services provided under a contract will therefore benefit from clearer rights, clearer remedies and, ultimately, better outcomes. I think that we would probably all agree that that is a good thing.
What we are not doing—in a moment, I will explain why it is right and proper not to do it—is to change which public services are covered by consumer law. Public services that are currently subject to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will be covered by the Bill. I will now turn to public services that are not covered by its provisions because such services are not provided under contract to a consumer. They include most NHS care, state-funded education and law enforcement services.
Let me be very clear: those consumers are nevertheless protected, and in a way that will often provide more tailored, specific and appropriate safeguards, designed to fit the particular service. Many of the tailored regimes already incorporate just the sort of protections that Opposition Members are pressing for—independent advocacy, regular reporting and established ombudsman schemes. In some cases, the protections already in place are similar to those provided by the Bill. For example, the rights that are consolidated in the NHS constitution are very similar to those in general consumer law, but are tailored for the provision of health care.
Mr Steve Reed
Does the Minister believe that public library users in Croydon should have a right to know why the council chose to sell the libraries off to one bidder rather than another, and that it should have taken that decision publicly, rather than in private?
Jenny Willott
Obviously, I cannot comment on the situation in Croydon because I do not know the details. However, the Government are committed to freedom of information and, in a moment, I will talk about the access to data and information that we are supporting in the private and public sectors.
We fully recognise that sometimes more intensive support is needed, above and beyond the advice that is given by Citizens Advice. That is why the patient advice and liaison service offers confidential advice, support and information on health-related matters. There are already independent third-party adjudicators in the public sector, for example at HMRC. Those systems exist to support consumers, often the most vulnerable, in making a complaint and having their voice heard.
There is a serious danger that mandating others to provide a service that overlaps what is in place will confuse, rather than strengthen, the landscape. We need to continue to make public services more responsive to end users, not dilute the central role of Citizens Advice and hinder its ability to act as a key advice agency by creating bureaucracy. We all share the vision of public services provided to a high standard, where consumer feedback and consumer choice work to push up standards. However, we do not need to bring them all within the ambit of the Bill to achieve that.
The transparency of data in the public sector, which has been raised by hon. Members, is a priority for the Government. In many areas, transparency is much more advanced in the public sector than in the private sector. Consumers of public services have access to a wealth of data, such as crime statistics and educational standards. Those all work to empower consumers, promote choice and accountability, and, ultimately, raise standards.
Let me make it clear that the Government support the principle that the public should have access to the data that are held on them. That is in line with our open data policies and activities, and with the approach that we are taking to the negotiations on the European data protection regulations. We embrace the principle that where social benefits can be obtained from anonymised data sets—so-called “big data”—that should be supported. That is why, alongside the midata programme, which is concerned with commercially held data, we are exploring how the data that are held on individuals by Departments might be made available to those individuals in a useful way. That work is in its early stages, but it is designed to address just the sort of issues that we have been discussing today.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, we have been reviewing the progress with the voluntary approach that has been taken to the midata programme so far. I plan to announce the results of the review shortly, but in the meantime I can report that there was an encouraging development in March. In the personal current accounts sector, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), we have secured a commitment from the big banks to provide customers’ transaction records—their midata—as downloadable files with a consistent format. That has been called for by Which? and the comparison sites. It is encouraging that by the end of the year the vast majority of current account holders in the UK will have access to their midata files. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman on the points that he has raised.
We are working with all the parties involved to ensure that tools are available to use those files. We are confident that this approach will help consumers to compare more easily what is on offer in terms of price and service. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for East Hampshire, there is clearly a lot more to be done to encourage consumers to switch. We hope that by providing the information and working with comparison sites, we can ensure that that happens more often.
Our central objective is that the Bill should deliver rights that are much easier for consumers to understand and use. It is a vast improvement in terms of the simplicity of the language and the consistency of approach. However, we recognise that traders need to know their forthcoming responsibilities in good time before the Bill comes into force, and consumers need practical guidance with real-life examples of how the legislation works. Achieving that quality of communication is a significant challenge and requires planning, which we have been doing.
As hon. Members have highlighted and as we discussed many times in Committee, we have been working with an implementation group to develop appropriate guidance and effective channels of communication. The group is making progress and we will publish a timetable later this year setting out when the parts of the work will be done. We intend to have guidance for businesses available soon after Royal Assent, and it will be available for consumers when the legislation comes into force to ensure that people are able to access and understand their rights.
Tom Greatrex
Will the Minister confirm whether the implementation group is looking at the specific issues that I raised: the retention of bonds and interest payments for small businesses, and additional warranties that are sold by retailers that do not provide any additional benefit to the consumer?
Jenny Willott
If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to those matters later in my speech and address the points that he raised.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
With an increasing number of consumers shopping online, will online traders have any duties under the Bill to provide information about consumers’ rights?
Fiona O’Donnell
I am happy to repeat the question—it might even be better this time. Will the Minister say whether, with an increasing number of people shopping online, there will be a duty on online traders to provide consumer rights information to their consumers?
Jenny Willott
I apologise to the hon. Lady. That was a very sensible question. That is being looked at. As she says, more and more people are buying online, so this is an important outlook for retailers. We need to ensure that consumers are aware of their rights, whether they are buying things on the high street or online. As we discussed in Committee, some requirements are being introduced in June that will provide more information and safeguards for consumers who purchase items online. The implementation group is looking at all the ways in which consumers buy goods and services to ensure that they are protected and know what their rights are.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) asked a number of questions about rail conditions of carriage, but such questions would be much more properly put to the Department for Transport. If I may, I will direct her points to Ministers in that Department and ask them to write to her with details of how the conditions of carriage are being reviewed. That is not a matter for the Bill but it is being considered by the Department for Transport, and I will ensure that her points are raised.
Lilian Greenwood
In Committee the Minister said that although rail services are excluded from the Bill, it was intended that any rights introduced by the Bill be incorporated in the rail conditions of carriage to ensure that consumers were no worse off as a result of that exclusion. How will she ensure that that is implemented?
Jenny Willott
I understand that rail conditions of carriage are more detailed and already go further than the fundamental backstop rights in the Bill. However, the Department for Transport is reviewing them, and I will ensure that her questions are passed to Ministers so that she receives a more detailed answer. We will ensure that the Bill is not confused with the rail conditions of carriage, and that they take primacy.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) raised an important constituency case, and I understand why he wished to do that. It concerned a business that had to pay a deposit for a telecoms contract, but the Bill does not affect business-to-business rights; it is about consumer rights and affects consumer-to-business rather than business-to-business contracts. I cannot comment specifically on the case, but it would probably not be covered by the Bill since it is a business case. Generally, however, we are doing more to protect deposits that are paid under contract.
Under the Bill, if a consumer enters into a contract for services and pays a deposit but then cancels, the trader does not have a free hand to retain that deposit. Any term in a contract that allows a trader to retain a deposit must be transparent and prominent to avoid challenge in the courts on grounds of fairness. Where such terms do not also provide equivalent compensation for the consumer when the trader dissolves the contract, they are liable to be challenged as unfair, even if they are transparent and prominent.
Our reforms also include clearer cancellation rights in consumer contracts regulations for consumers who buy at a distance or at home. Consumers must be informed that they have 14 days to change their mind and cancel such contracts, and a trader must reimburse them within 14 days of being informed by the consumer about a cancellation of the services. Those regulations will come into force in June, which will give consumers additional protection.
Fiona O’Donnell
The Minister is generous in giving way again. Is she not missing the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) made, which was that the Government missed an opportunity to protect small businesses in the Bill, to treat them as consumers and give them those rights? That £900 can be the difference between a business sinking or swimming.
Jenny Willott
As the hon. Lady will remember, we discussed this issue at length in Committee. The Government consulted on whether small businesses should be covered by consumer legislation in 2008 and 2012, and on both occasions the result of that consultation was that they should not be. Recent work by the Federation of Small Businesses considered whether micro-businesses should be covered by consumer law, and it too came to the conclusion that they should not be. There is work to be done on the protection of micro-businesses, and some regulators are considering treating them in a similar way. However, the Government consultation on consumer law resolved that it was far more complicated to include micro-businesses as consumers, and that was not the response to the consultation.
The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West raised the issue of guarantees being sold with products. Consumer protection regulations already prohibit traders from presenting statutory rights as a distinctive feature of their offer, so a guarantee that offered no more than a consumer’s statutory rights would already be prohibited. We have now made it easier for consumers to get their money back when they have been mis-sold something to which they already have a legal right.
Yvonne Fovargue
Will the Minister elaborate on how that would affect customers of organisations such as BrightHouse and PerfectHome, where the cost of an extended warranty is included in the price of the goods and is compulsory? What rights do those customers have to cancel and get some money back, apart from giving back the goods?
Jenny Willott
The issue is whether extended warrantees provide anything over and above the statutory rights provided under the law. If companies charge more just to provide statutory protection, that would be prohibited under consumer protection regulations. A purchase that somebody would make, such as a hire purchase or whatever, would depend on the terms of their contract. If the contract contains terms that are unfair, they may well be on the grey list—we will come to that in future discussions on the Bill—and such terms may be challengeable in the courts on grounds of fairness. If the hon. Lady is concerned about specific terms in the Bill, she might raise them at that specific point in our debate to see whether they would be covered.
Tom Greatrex
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again but I raised another point, to which she did not respond. It concerns what happens if a consumer buys a product with a manufacturer’s warranty and is then sold a supplementary warranty by a retailer, which does nothing more than the manufacturer’s warranty. Is that an issue on which the implementation group will be able to provide information for consumers?
Jenny Willott
That is the point I just made. If a warranty provides no more than the statutory rights and there is a charge associated with it, whoever is selling the warranty may well be in breach of consumer protection regulations. When shops sell goods and the warranty is purchased at the same time, the full cost must be disclosed and consumers must be informed of their statutory rights. Consumers also have the right to cancel the extended warranty within a set period, and those rights must be made known to the consumers when they purchase the warranty. That is covered under consumer protection regulations, and there are also rights in this Bill. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman highlights would be covered.
The other issue raised today is nuisance calls, which is a priority for the Government. I am sure that all hon. Members have had constituency casework on that, but there is no silver bullet to eradicate the problem. That is why in our action plan of 30 March we set out a range of measures to address the issue. They included work that is already under way to improve call tracing, making it easier to disclose information between Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office, and setting up a taskforce led by Which? to review consumer consent issues. We will also consult on making it easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to tackle nuisance calls as part of amending the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. Although I understand the intention behind the new clause, the Government are taking a lot of action in this area. Changes will be introduced in the next months, and we are consulting on more actions. I hope that I have covered the issues raised by hon. Members, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Walthamstow to withdraw her new clause.
Stella Creasy
The Minister expressed surprise that some of these issues should have been the subject of new clauses. I am sad about that. In her responses, she is missing some of the debates that we had in Committee on just these issues—not just on implementation but on the impact of the Bill on the public sector. I am saddened that she has not answered what I call the Graham Norton question about the licence fee. We will take that as a yes, meaning that licence fee payers will be entitled to these rights.
The Minister said that a review of complaints is ongoing and talked about the role of the public sector ombudsman. This is what is causing so much concern and has prompted the new clauses. That is happening at the same time as this legislation is making progress, so a whole series of new legal methods of redress will be open to licence fee payers, personal care budget holders and students paying tuition fees. At the same time, a secondary process is being undertaken in government. The situation is confusing.
I am pleased that the Minister’s understanding of consumer rights in the public sector—and what they can offer—is evolving. In that sense, I am happy to give her the benefit of the doubt in what she says about new clause 2 and the implementation group. I am sure that the Lords will want to hear about its further progress. I am also happy to give her the benefit of the doubt about advocacy. Her conversion to the importance of advocacy is welcome: it was not clear in Committee, but it is wonderful to hear her talking about it now. She has been dragged kicking and screaming to the debate, and I refer to the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon North (Mr Reed), for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), and even the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) about the importance of advocacy and what more should be done in the Bill.
On that basis, I am happy not to press new clause 5 to a vote, but I will press new clause 3 and new schedule 1, given what the Minister said about information. I have to point out to the hon. Member for East Hampshire that the Government have admitted that the midata project has stalled. The look on his face spoke volumes about the problems of getting access to those data. The Minister said that the Government thought that people should have access to the data they create within the public sector: the Opposition think that people should own their own data. It is a clear dividing line.
New clause 3 and new schedule 1 set out some clear rights for people. On nuisance calls, the Minister said the Government are already doing something. Why does she oppose paragraph 5 of new schedule 1, which would place sanctions on those people who do not have consent, to send a clear message to the companies that are abusing the information that they have? It is beyond me. The issue of ownership of data is key, so we will press new clause 3, which would bring in new schedule 1, to a vote. The British public should not just have access to their data; they should own it. It is a clear division between the two parties on consumer and citizen rights, and an increasingly important debate for this country. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Access to data
‘Schedule [Access to data] has effect.’.—(Stella Creasy.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Debt management plan regulation—
‘The Financial Conduct Authority shall bring forward recommendations within a year of the commencement of this Act regarding the practice of directly charging consumers fees or charges for the provision of debt management plans, including recommendations on the phasing out of such practices.’.
New clause 9—Credit broker fees—
‘(1) The Consumer Credit Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 160A (Credit intermediaries) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Persons engaged in credit intermediary activity under this section or credit broking activity under section 145 shall not charge or take any fee from a debtor in respect of these activities until such time as an introduction results in the debtor entering into a relevant agreement.”.’.
New clause 11—Practices of rent to own companies—
‘(1) This section applies to credit agreements and consumer hire agreements taken out in respect of household goods specified in rules by the Financial Conduct Authority.
(2) The rules under subsection (1) shall—
(a) include a requirement on lenders to include in pre-contractual information adequate explanations and information allowing prospective customers to compare both the cash price of goods and the total cost of the credit agreement to a representative retail price for those goods;
(b) prohibit lenders from requiring customers to take out insurance sold or brokered by the lender as a condition of obtaining credit;
(c) set out specific steps lenders must take before taking action to enforce the agreement or recover possession of goods; and
(d) set out the steps lenders should take to check that the agreement is affordable and suitable for prospective consumers.’.
New clause 23—Consumer credit: bill of sale—
‘(1) Where a person is a purchaser of goods subject to a bill of sale, made in connection with a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in good faith and without notice of the bill of sale, title to those goods shall pass to that person.
(2) A creditor is not entitled to enforce a bill of sale made in connection with a regulated agreement by recovering possession of the goods except through an order of the court.
(3) If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention to subsection (2)—
(a) the bill of sale will be treated as invalidly made; and
(b) the debtor shall be released from any outstanding liability under the regulated agreement.
(4) If the creditor has disposed of goods taken in contravention of subsection (2) the debtor shall be compensated to the value of those goods.’.
Stella Creasy
The new clauses lie at the heart of consumer issues: if consumers have no money in their pockets, they will not do very much consuming. A personal debt crisis is brewing because millions of people are trying to make ends meet and pay for the debt they took on to try to make ends meet previously. Household debt is at its highest since 2009, with people owing £1.6 trillion in personal debt. Some 43% of us say that we often or sometimes struggle to make it to payday—little wonder, given the way in which the cost of living has escalated. The new clauses come into play because debt repayment is increasingly the reason that people struggle to make it to payday. They reflect an attempt not to continue the good work that has been done in this House to address the consumer credit market, but to recognise that the Government’s belated conversion to the Opposition’s approach on payday lending needs to be just the start of the conversation on how we ensure that people have the pounds in the pocket they need. This is intrinsic to our economic future, given that consumer spending has accounted for so much of the growth we are now seeing. That, in itself, is perhaps one of the problems we face.
Let me explain the new clauses I wish to speak to today, because I know that other Members want to speak to the new clauses they propose. New clause 6 concerns what Members might call my bête noir—payday lenders. There are now 8 million loans annually, which are worth £2.2 billion. Those loans come with a cost. The National Audit Office estimates that they cost consumers £450 million a year of direct consumer harm, because of the failure to regulate the payday lending industry. For several years we proposed regulation of the industry, but it will come in only next year.
One in 10 British adults are likely to take out a payday loan in the next six months. That figure is going up, not down. It is little wonder that companies such as Wonga are making £1 million a week from our constituents—a 36% increase on the previous year—even though it is writing off huge swathes of its loan book. Some 40% of those who took out a payday loan said that it made their financial position worse, but many feel that they have little alternative. Credit unions are desperately trying to fill the gap, but it is an impossible gap to fill with the current level of need. It is time for payday lenders to pay their way. New clause 6 would enable an additional levy to be made on high cost credit companies to ensure that they provide funding for the debt advice and extension of credit unions that this situation requires. In fact, we believe the pressure on debt advice agencies and, indeed, credit unions is likely to increase, not subside, in the years ahead. We therefore think it time for the payday lenders to pay for the damage they have done.
New clause 7 also speaks to the growing personal debt bubble in our society, and to the conduct of the cowboy debt management agencies. We have already talked about legal loan sharks, and now it is time to look at the cowboys, but these are not just the stuff of nightmare. These companies are profiting from the misery of our constituents, exploiting the way in which debt management is done in this country.
The Government themselves admit that in excess of 1 million consumers each year are seeking advice on how best to deal with their financial difficulties. Many of us will know from our constituency surgeries the people who come to us in desperate need, often because they are about to be evicted for falling behind with their rent. We also encounter people who are struggling financially and who need help forming a debt management plan to deal with their creditors. That is the gap that these companies have filled.
About 7% of British adults report struggling to payday due to debt management payment plans, and 6% blame their payday loan problems on debt repayments. Bank loan repayments are the cause of 13% of those who struggle to payday. People are struggling because they are trying to pay back the debts they have accrued, especially over the last couple of years. It equates to about 2.5 million people that we know of who are already in a debt management plan.
Some debt management plans are available free, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Christians Against Poverty and StepChange for the work they are doing in providing people with free debt advice. After all, it is the most perverse of experiences for people struggling with financial debt to be charged to get out of the hole they are in. That is the challenge we are facing. It was estimated in 2010 that commercial debt management companies were making about £250 million a year from over-indebted clients. As I say, that was back in 2010. The Money Advice Service now tells us that there are 9 million people in our country who are over-indebted, so these are the people for whom these sorts of services may well be apposite. The need to reform how they work therefore becomes even stronger.
Ministers admitted in 2002 in response to questioning by the BIS Committee that there was evidence of some abuse of upfront fees, so let us talk about what is meant by that. We have an example from Clear View Finance of a gentleman for whom 90% of the money he was paying to the company was being taken in a fee, so a mere 10% of the money he was paying to clear his debts was going to his creditors—little chance for him to get out of the cycle of debt he was in any time soon! Yet when the Minister admitted that there was such abuse, he said that these companies had a role to play, so there was not really any need for any further regulation of them. We disagree, and we were disappointed when the Government voted in Committee against our proposals to deal with debt management companies.
We recognise that the Financial Conduct Authority has taken over the management of these companies, and it proudly trumpets that it is going to limit to 50% the amount a company can take in fees rather than pay out to creditors. We believe that we should go much further. We do not believe that people should be charged for being in debt when they come forward for help, and we want to see the phasing out of fees for debt management altogether.
Let me provide an example of why that would make a difference. StepChange, which provides this service for free, found that a client with a typical debt of £30,000 would have to pay for a commercial product almost an extra £6,000 in fees—£6,000 over and above the loan repayments. That extended the plan by approximately 18 months in comparison with one that StepChange had put together.
Taken in concert with new clause 6, which would provide the funding to increase debt advice, we believe that we can phase out fees for debt management, and we believe that that is the right thing to do—not to charge people for getting into debt, but to help them get out of debt. As millions of Britons are already in this cycle and millions more are likely to get into it as interest rates rise and they have increasing problems with their credit card and personal debt repayments coming home to roost, the case for reforming our debt management cowboy firms grows all the stronger.
Finally, new clause 23 speaks to another legal loan sharking practice in this country, which we believe is long overdue for overhauling. Citizens Advice chief executive Gillian Guy has said:
“The logbook industry is still in the dark ages and has been getting away with lawless practices. It is absolutely absurd that a firm should be able to take away someone’s possessions without any due legal process.”
Millions of people are affected, both those who take out logbook loans and those who buy a second-hand car without knowing that there is a charge against it, only to find that the car is being repossessed and that they have no recourse to any legal practice.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I intervene on the hon. Lady because I want to put it on record that no Government Members are laughing about anyone who happens to be in debt. Many of us, along with Opposition Members, have worked very hard to deal with issues relating to personal debt, and we are not laughing at all.
Stella Creasy
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes the issue seriously. I assume that he will support the new clauses, which constitute a recognition of the need to act now. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman talks of 13 years, but the growth of the payday lending and logbook loan industries has exploded as people have found that there is too much month at the end of their money. That has been a fact for the last couple of years. The question for all of us now is this: do we sit and argue about these issues, or do we take action? The Bill gives us an opportunity to take action with some very concrete proposals to end fees for debt management companies, to make the payday lenders pay their way, and to deal with the problem of logbook loans.
Let me simply say this to Government Members. They can either put their money where their mouths are and recognise that these problems need to be dealt with, or they can carp and make political points. It is their call, but I know what my constituents would rather see: support for the new clauses.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I have a huge amount of admiration for the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who tabled new clause 11, and who brings plenty of front-line experience to the House. She has taken a cross-party, constructive and positive approach on a number of issues, and has a good, strong record of influencing the Government’s opinions.
The new clause is, in effect, the BrightHouse clause, and I was moved to come and speak about it because I had seen the company’s recent television advertisements displaying the cost of renting washing machines, televisions and even the sofas on which people could sit while using the other articles they were renting.
There are two parts to the proposals that I urge the Government to seriously consider. The first concerns displaying the total cost, because often the weekly or monthly repayments seem relatively reasonable but once we translate them over the entire period of the loan, we start to realise they can be a very expensive way to purchase an item. The work I have done on the all-party group on financial education for young people was centred on empowering consumers to make informed decisions, and that should also be a priority in respect of consumer credit regulations. It is all about making sure consumers can make an informed decision, and when the facts are displayed in cash terms even those with limited financial ability are able to make a relatively informed decision.
The point about protecting consumers by making sure they can afford the products is also important. We are moving towards that in the high-cost lending market. It is what we do with bank loans, for instance, and I do not think it is unreasonable to have it in this context, because this is in effect a loan, as until the person has completed the purchase—until they have paid 100% of those monthly or weekly costs—the item is not theirs. If they fall over at the 99% stage, it is returned. It is therefore in effect a loan that gives the person something at the end, so there should be protection because all too often consumers who have no chance of completing 100% of the payments are getting themselves into an expensive way of accessing items. There is merit in those two particular areas and I hope the Government will give them serious consideration.
Yvonne Fovargue
I am chair of the all-party group on debt and personal finance and we have done constructive work on many of these issues. I support the new clauses and I am pleased that new clause 23 addresses the Victorian practice of bills of sale. They are used for a purpose for which they were never intended. That does not just affect those who take out a loan by using them; it also affects people who do everything they can to check hire purchase information and the credit agreement on the car in question but who do not know their car can still be taken at any time.
I want to speak to my new clause 9, which deals with the problem of credit broking firms. I believe they are the new wild west in this area. They offer, for a fee, to find consumers a loan. In too many cases they take the fees from the consumer and do not give them a service at all, or they find them an unsuitable loan that they do not want. Under some circumstances consumers can get a partial refund, but they often struggle to get these firms to give the refund.
There was a super-complaint by Citizens Advice in 2011 and the Office of Fair Trading concluded:
“At the first available opportunity, the Government should carry out an impact assessment to establish whether legislative change would effectively address the consumer detriment caused by upfront fees in the credit brokerage sector both in the immediate and longer term, including considering a ban on credit brokers charging upfront fees”.
The Government declined to do this, saying that the new OFT guidance issued in response to the super-complaint should be given time to work. It has had two years to work and I am still getting evidence of problems.
I would like to mention a recent constituency case that caused me to look into the practice of one particular company, Myloan. The 18-year-old daughter of a constituent tried to get a loan; unbeknown to her mother and father, she was desperate. She went to Myloan in January. She completed the process and was advised that it could not loan to her, but she had given it her bank account details because it said it would find her a loan. It took the 16-digit number, the security number and an application fee of £68.99. It then processed the application. It sent her details off to 13 other companies. No companies offered her a loan, yet every company took an application fee, and she ended up a further £375 in debt. The majority of that money was taken within nine days of the initial approach. She was 18 and she did not know what would happen if she did this. It is clear that she was taken advantage of by this company.
I looked into this company and there were pages and pages of complaints on the internet of it taking fees and people not getting loans. We need to act now to stop vulnerable consumers being cheated by these companies.
I now wish to deal with the BrightHouse clause, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). It deals with companies that offer household goods to customers on a rent-to-own basis, whereby, again, they make weekly payments and own the product only once the final payment is made. I am using BrightHouse as an example because it is the largest rent-to-own company in the United Kingdom. It has more than 270 stores and plans to expand at a rate of about one a fortnight. These stores have become a common feature on the high street and tend to be found in more deprived areas. Indeed, it has been remarked that having a BrightHouse store is now a signifier that the area could be deprived, not that BrightHouse’s stores are downbeat or shabby—they look really good.
A TV researcher contacted me about BrightHouse because she had gone into one of its stores to look for a bedside cabinet and was appalled by the amount BrightHouse was charging a week. People who are unable to pay outright for goods and may previously have gone to get a social fund loan now cannot get one and have to use these weekly repayments. They allow customers to pay in small weekly chunks, repayable over several years. That can be convenient but there is a catch or two—if we include the insurance that is included, there is a catch or three. BrightHouse defends adding everything together by saying, “Our target customers are mostly women and they like things simple.” Well this is one woman who does not agree with BrightHouse on that one. Not only do its customers pay a higher price—often higher than is paid in Harrods—but at a typical APR of 69.9% the loan is extortionate. For example, customers can buy an HP Envy 120 all-in-one printer from BrightHouse for £322.23, which will end up costing £520 by the time they have paid £5 a week over 104 weeks, whereas John Lewis has the same product for £149.99.
Justin Tomlinson
Obviously, I support the principles being expressed here. The key thing is that the vast majority of consumers would not be able to calculate the total cost with an APR—even Treasury Ministers would struggle to do that—which is why it is so incredibly important to have everything displayed in cash terms. That is the simplest form for any consumer, allowing them to make an informed decision.
Yvonne Fovargue
I totally agree with that. I do not believe many customers know how over the odds the costs are. They cannot use a comparison, because they do not have the £150 to go to John Lewis to pay the cost straight off. They think that they are paying a bit more, but they are paying a fortune more—they are paying nearly five times as much. My new clause would require stores to set out all the costs, and I make provision in respect of similar goods because BrightHouse has occasionally changed one figure or a letter at the end and said, “There isn’t a comparable good.” There is a comparable good, but BrightHouse has just changed an X or a Y at the end of the goods.
Customers may still choose to shop at BrightHouse —I would not stop them shopping there—but they need to have the full facts. Clearly, low weekly payments are what make BrightHouse seem attractive to so many, but that does not mean they are affordable. BrightHouse encourages its customers to take on more and more loans; I have had reports of people being rung at home with tempting news of the latest in-store arrivals, keeping the customers in a constant cycle of debt. Small weekly payments quickly mount up and become unaffordable. There is talk about people buying the big TVs, but the other problem is that that is the only option in BrightHouse. It does not have the smaller goods; it has the big plasma TVs. BrightHouse does not stock the range of goods that people can shop around for.
I have encountered a case of a customer making weekly payments of £75 to BrightHouse, from a benefits payment of £100 a week—it is no wonder people cannot survive in such circumstances. My new clause would ensure that BrightHouse has to carry out proper affordability checks. We are asking payday lenders to do that, so why should the rent-to-own companies not have to do it as well? Including the insurance does not provide value for money, but people will not challenge it under the unfair contract terms because, in general, the people who go to BrightHouse do not want to challenge and go to court, as it is a frightening experience. So my new clause will ensure that these companies cannot enforce taking out the cover.
The last part of my new clause deals with repossession, because a lot of evidence shows that a missed payment or two leads to the loss of the goods concerned, often without a court order, despite the fact that the customer has paid the true cost of the goods several times over. BrightHouse says that that is done only with the customer’s consent, but many people have been left in dire straits when essential items such as their fridge or washing machine have been taken, often at short notice. The company has a perfect right to take the goods, but there are ways of doing it fairly. My amendment ensures that proper procedures are followed, and that customers are not pressurised into giving back goods for which they have paid a considerable amount. I am not against the services that BrightHouse offers, but I am against a business model that is so stacked against the customer that it amounts to little less than exploitation. There is a huge irony when the poorest in society pay the highest prices. BrightHouse and others like it should give thought to their customers and their ability to pay. Hopefully, this amendment will concentrate their thinking.
Damian Hinds
It is always a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) who talks not only with passion but with a great deal of knowledge and expertise about these matters. I wish to speak briefly about new clauses 11 and 6. Before I do, may I say that it was a little unfortunate that the remarks of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) took the turn that they did at the end? What she said is simply not true, and everybody in this House who takes an interest in these issues, which she certainly does, knows that the sub-prime high-cost credit market has been around for donkey’s years. It has not started—[Interruption.] No, it has not started, or even in its totality dramatically shifted, in the past three years.
The hon. Lady mentioned statistics for payday lending and logbook lending, but, if she was being complete in her analysis, she might have talked about when the big growth spurt came in home credit. She might even have talked about when the growth spurt came in rent to own. Perhaps she would like to take the opportunity to talk briefly about those things now. I would happily take an intervention.
Stella Creasy
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he voted three times in the House over the past three years against capping the cost of credit and therefore tackling some of these problems? If he recognises that there are problems, is he saying that he will support the new clauses today?
Damian Hinds
Clearly, I was not saying that. I was asking the hon. Lady whether she wanted to comment on the growth of home credit and rent to own. We have had many opportunities in this House to discuss a cap on the cost of credit, and she and I—and she and many other Members—have had an opportunity to discuss some of the practical aspects. There will now be a cap on the total cost of credit, but that is not to say that the definition of that is without difficulties. It remains a tricky thing to do. All of us, including her, who take a close interest in these issues know that there is no single silver bullet solution that solves any of these market problems. We need regulation, empowerment for consumers, financial education and sensible alternatives. This House is at its best when we are discussing what those practical approaches might be, and I welcome the new clauses, which allow us to talk about those very things. I have an awful lot of sympathy for the sentiment behind new clause 11, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Makerfield, and for what is behind new clauses 7 and 9, but we must be wary about seemingly straightforward legislative solutions that may not deliver all they purport to.
We always talk in the plural when we refer to rent-to-own companies, but in reality there is one really big company. There is a problem with the pricing and marketing of these companies. I have recently been added to the BrightHouse e-mail marketing list. I do not know what I have done to deserve that honour—I am not sure whether I should take it as a compliment—but I am now bombarded with messages saying how easy it is to pay weekly, and it is those messages that go to the heart of the problem. To be fair, the slightly misleading approach that we are talking about does not necessarily apply just to rent-to-own companies. We could say that it applies to every pay-monthly mobile phone contract, through which we not only pay for our calls but finance the phone, but it is never advertised how much is for the phone and how much for the calls. We always see it as one all-together monthly amount.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making very measured comments. It is true that no one party has a handle on debt in this debate. Many of us are concerned about the matter. Does he agree that companies such as Emmaus in my constituency have helped to ensure that people do not have to take on ridiculous payback terms, by enabling them to access good refurbished second-hand goods free of charge if their circumstances allow? I pay tribute to companies such as Emmaus that have helped many people in difficulty who need goods.
Damian Hinds
I am not familiar with Emmaus, but I am sure that it is an admirable organisation. I can mention Furniture Helpline in my constituency, and there are many others throughout the country.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Affordability is at the root of this issue. It is not only companies such as BrightHouse that concern us—for years, when interest rates were rising, supposedly reputable companies simply extended the time that people had to pay, so that the weekly payments stayed relatively low. That is the real issue at the heart of this.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who is sitting next to me, mentions catalogues: catalogue credit has worked on that basis for a long time, stressing the weekly repayment amount. There is also an ability to shift the amount that is apparently the cost of the product and how much is paid for the financing—in the case of catalogues, that is often zero, but the base price is inflated to allow for that.
My worry about the approach in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Makerfield is that I do not know how we would make the price comparator work. She made an important point about product numbers. As electronic comparison capability increases, it will be important to be able to make a direct like-for-like comparison, and adding an extra letter to a product number to make such comparison impossible should certainly be cracked down on.
Damian Hinds
It is difficult, but if we are talking about a big plasma TV or a washing machine, equivalent products and other brands are also available. The basic problem, however, is not that the information is not available, because the idea that people do not have the ability to make such comparisons becomes less and less true every month, with smartphones and so on. The difficulty relates to money advice, and encouraging and prompting people to make the comparison. We do not solve that problem by adding small-print text about the total cost, the annual percentage rate, the total cost of credit, the reminder that “your house may be at risk”, blah, blah, blah. All those things do not solve the problem of how we encourage people to make that comparison and do the analysis to ensure that they are not worse off than they need to be.
That leads me on to new clause 6 and the so-called
“annual report on the level at which a levy on lenders in the high cost consumer credit market should be set”.
There is a levy that applies to lenders, so I assume that the requirement for a report is a device to call for something that might be in place anyway. Debt advice is also provided. We could argue that, at the high-cost end of sub-prime, such lenders should make a greater contribution, because of the detriment associated with them, but that does not require primary legislation.
The new clause would also have the Government make provision for affordable credit to be available through credit unions. I would argue strongly that the Government have brought and are bringing forward measures to ensure that affordable credit is available to vulnerable customers through credit unions. Through the credit union expansion project, tens of millions of pounds are being made available to modernise and upgrade the sector. Through regulatory reform—the passing, finally, of the legislative reform order—the increase in the monthly interest rate cap from 2% to 3% makes competition with high-cost, short-term lenders a little more possible. Also, as we were discussing, the cap on the interest charged in the commercial sector will at least help to slow the apparently inexorable rise of that sector. There are also things that the social lending sector must do. It has to step up to the plate on its marketing, branding and consistency of product offer. There will have to be consolidation in the sector to provide the services that people want.
I do not know whether the idea behind new clause 6 in the mind of the hon. Member for Walthamstow came from the recent IPPR report, on which she commented, which suggested that a one-off levy on high-cost lenders would facilitate a great expansion in the social lending sector.
Mrs Main
Will my hon. Friend speak a little more slowly? The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), on the Opposition Front Bench, is having trouble tweeting. She is trying to provide a running commentary on his speech and perhaps if he went a little more slowly she would catch up.
Damian Hinds
I will always follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow, so I shall pay great attention to what she has tweeted after the debate.
I have a lot of sympathy with any measures proposed to help support the growth of the credit union sector. A lot of things in the IPPR report are welcome and positive, such as the idea of having credit unions in post offices, Church of England facilities and so on, but with respect to all concerned I would say that those are hardly first-time-out occurrences of the proposals. A back-stop reclaim facility, through the benefit system, could also have some benefits.
However, the idea—this is the main point—that some huge one-off capitalisation of credit unions would help to facilitate their growth, is not right. Under the previous Government, we had the growth fund, and I am not here to diss that. It was a well-intentioned initiative and will have done a lot of good. Such things are also eroded over time, however, and by definition if one has a big one-off capitalisation one ends up having to address a slightly more costly part of the market, which contributes to that erosion. What we need to do to help support and facilitate the growth of credit unions is what this Government are doing. We are trying to get them on to a sustainable footing with modernised systems, working collaboratively together to get the marketing and branding right so that the sector does not need a subsidy for ever but reaches a scale at which it can address more and more consumers, meaning that fewer and fewer consumers need or want to access the types of lenders we have been discussing today.
Fiona O'Donnell
Despite appearances, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and I are not taking part in a mother and daughter catalogue photo shoot later. We should perhaps co-ordinate in future on what to wear when we are both taking part in the same debate.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). He said that his Government are taking an interest in issues around payday lending. They are certainly taking something, although I am not sure whether it is just an interest. When he criticises Labour, saying that for 13 years we did nothing, he fails to recognise that there has been an incredible growth, certainly in my constituency, in the number of people having to resort to payday lenders. They are having to increase the amount they are borrowing from those lenders as well as their general debt levels. There is a cost of living crisis and poverty is the root cause, and the Government should have acted more quickly. The hon. Gentleman is on the record as having said that self-regulation works, but even he has had to admit that self-regulation of payday lending has not worked and that it is time for action.
Figures reported by StepChange last December showed that among its clients, people seeking debt advice in East Lothian, my constituency, are now saddled with average payday loan debts of £1,864, £466 above the Scottish average.
Justin Tomlinson
I want to reassure the hon. Lady that a number of us have worked on a cross-party basis to push for the extra regulation the Government are introducing. At no point were we saying that self-management would be fine. We were pushing for regulation and I am delighted that the Government are taking that forward to protect vulnerable consumers.
Fiona O'Donnell
I wonder whether I can ask the hon. Gentleman which door he pushed. Was it in the Aye Lobby or the No Lobby when we voted on this issue? Taking an interest is what we do in this House, but it is the action we take that matters. I am not aware of his having rebelled but perhaps I am misjudging him. I will gladly give way to him again on that point.
Justin Tomlinson
I am afraid that the hon. Lady is confusing two issues. A huge amount of work has been done by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and Members from all three parties. They have come together to influence Government regulation that has been introduced to protect vulnerable consumers. The hon. Lady is simply confusing two issues.
Fiona O'Donnell
The two issues I am confusing are what people say and what people do.
I want to be helpful to the hon. Member for East Hampshire on the e-mails that he is receiving from BrightHouse. I suggest that he follow up the matter with the Financial Conduct Authority. The last time we debated high-cost loans, I spoke about my experience with Wonga. I had received an e-mail offering me another loan when I was not aware that I had ever had a loan. I was told that the e-mail had not come from Wonga, that it was some kind of fraud and not to worry about it. I have recently taken this up with the FCA, which now has some authority to deal with the issue. I think that the authority will be asking the Government for more powers to get to grips with this. It suggested to me that a fraudulent application for a loan had been made in my name; my contact details were supplied, but Wonga failed to notify me of that and has retained my data on its files, and that is why it has been marketing products to me. He may wish to take up his case with the FCA and perhaps check out his credit rating—as I immediately did, to see whether the application had affected me. I admire his restraint in not rushing from the Chamber at this very moment to do that.
The exploitation that we have seen is plain and simple. Payday loan companies are not called legal loan sharks for no reason. They are predatory. They sniff out hunger, home in on and exploit the difficult situations in which so many of our constituents find themselves. The figures from one of my citizens advice bureaux in Haddington showed that debt-related cases accounted for 51% of its total inquiries from April to June 2013, a rise in East Lothian of more than 40% from the same quarter the previous year. That is why Opposition Members have been urging the Government to do something as quickly as possible. It is why we are saying that the cap needs to be introduced. It is welcome that the Government have changed their mind, but we would like to see that brought forward to 2014. People in my constituency and all our constituencies who are struggling with debt need help now.
While not everyone who borrows using a payday loan gets into difficulties, enough do as a result of the terms of the loan that the industry is now making billions of pounds. When one in three such loans are being used to pay off another payday loan, we need to call time on these lenders breaking their own codes of conduct and step in to reform the industry. It is time to have a levy on the industry so that companies have to give something back to the communities who are swelling their coffers but suffering at the same time. The hon. Member for East Hampshire said that the money suddenly injected into credit unions would not have the impact that we hoped. My constituency is served by a credit union, but it does not have a presence on the high street; it lacks visibility. It works through employers such as East Lothian council encouraging their employees to save with them, but it does not reach the people who wander off the high street into The Cash Store or BrightHouse. A cash injection to the credit union in my constituency to give it a high street presence would tackle the exploitation that I see among the poorest and most vulnerable people.
I understand that Members have worked on a cross-party basis—I will now try to take back some of the earlier sour remarks—but let us not be limited in our ambition today. I hope that they will get behind the new clause and make a difference to the people who are suffering in our constituencies.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a useful debate. The trouble with the new clause is that, unless we are careful, if we legislate in haste on complex legal matters, we may be subject to the law of unintended consequences and make things worse. No one denies that a lot of people are under tremendous financial stress, and we all want more transparency. I agree that on many occasions the law needs to be updated.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about bills of sale and described them as a Victorian product. In fact, bills of sale have been around for centuries. The Bills of Sale Act dates from 1878, and was amended in 1882. That does not necessarily mean that bills of sale are wrong in themselves. I looked up the definition of “bill of sale”, which is
“a legal document made by the seller to a purchaser…that on a specific date at a specific locality and for a particular sum of money or other value received, the seller sold to the purchaser a specific item of personal property, or parcel of real property, of which he had lawful possession.”
It is a written instrument which evidences the transfer of title to personal property from the vendor or seller to the vendee or sellee. For instance, a typical bill of sale would be something very simple: “for the sum of X pounds I hereby sell to Larry Smith full ownership of a green John Deere harvester.”
A bill of sale is a simple, historic or traditional way of ensuring the transfer of title. I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow that things can become complicated, and that is evidenced in legal sources when a bill of sale is attached to a loan, as it can be used as evidence of a loan and security for a loan; so someone’s car, for instance, may be used as security for a loan.
Just because some bills of sale are misused and some people suffer as a result of the process or are under legal stress, that does not mean that we have to throw a century of careful legal practice and growth out of the window, as we might make things worse. If we over-regulate legal loan providers, we may well force people into the clutches of unregulated loan sharks. My suggestion to the Minister—and I agree that this is a serious problem—is that rather than attack bills of sale, which have been around for a long time and have been used in an entirely reputable and correct way and entirely transparently to transfer ownership, or just throw them out of the window by accepting a new clause that has not been thought through, the issue should go to the Law Commission, which can study all the evidence and practice and ensure that we protect consumers, achieve full transparency, and modernise the law. We should not rush through Acts of Parliament that can make things worse for people under stress and force them into the hands of loan sharks.
Jenny Willott
I welcome you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to our exciting debate this afternoon. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) opened the debate by saying that we had an opportunity to take action on these issues. I completely agree, so I am sure she is absolutely delighted to see how much the Government have done to protect consumers and take action in these areas.
We have debated a number of issues, and I shall run through them in turn. First, on the issue of high-cost or payday lenders, hon. Members will know—certainly the hon. Lady knows this, as we have discussed it before—that the Government have taken robust action to curb the harm these lenders can cause. On 1 April, responsibility for regulating payday lenders, along with all other consumer credit firms, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority, as mentioned by a number of Members. The Government strongly welcome the FCA’s new, tough rules for regulating payday lending. The FCA requires robust affordability checks, limits the number of times that a payday loan can be rolled over to two, and places tough restrictions on lenders’ use of continuous payment authorities. As highlighted by a number of Members, the Government have also legislated to require the FCA to introduce a cap on the cost of payday loans to protect consumers from unfair costs. The FCA will consult on its proposals for the cap in the summer, and it will be in force no later than 2 January 2015.
In addition, the FCA will thoroughly assess every payday lender’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process. Given the risks to consumers, the FCA has said that those firms will be in the first phase of firms and will be required to be fully authorised from October this year. The Government believe that the tough and decisive action the FCA is taking, including the cap on the cost of payday loans, will ensure that consumers are far better protected than they have been.
Justin Tomlinson
The welcome news is that the measures are already making a difference, because a number of lenders have already withdrawn from the market, which is a bonus for the vulnerable consumer.
Jenny Willott
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We only have anecdotal evidence at the moment, but it is clear that a significant number of lenders have already withdrawn from the market because they know they will not be able to comply with the rules, which are extremely tough. As he said, that is absolutely as it should be. People who cannot comply with the rules are withdrawing, and consumers are being protected as a result.
Free debt advice is currently funded by a levy on lenders channelled via the Money Advice Service. As payday lenders are now regulated by the FCA, they too will contribute to the levy. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow would duplicate the existing funding arrangements for debt advice. It is important that we put on the record the fact that payday lenders will be contributing to money advice services via the levy.
It is also important to note that the FCA is taking steps to ensure that vulnerable consumers are aware of the free debt advice available to them. It requires all high-cost, short-term lenders to signpost their customers to free debt advice at the point at which a loan is rolled over, and all payday lending adverts must include a risk warning and information about where to get free debt advice.
Yvonne Fovargue
Will the Minister confirm that the amount raised by the levy will increase as the payday lenders are brought into it and that the amount paid will remain the same and will not simply be spread more thinly among the lenders?
Jenny Willott
To be totally honest, I do not know the answer to that question, but I will write to the hon. Lady to clarify that point.
Similarly, the levy will duplicate the Government’s existing support for credit unions. The Government are already investing £38 million to support the sustainable growth of credit unions to help them meet borrowers’ needs, as highlighted by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Through that expansion, credit unions could save people on low incomes up to £1 billion in interest repayments, compared with going to a payday lender.
The Government therefore firmly believe that consumer choice and protection will be substantially strengthened by the new FCA regime and the ongoing Government support for credit unions. For the first time, payday lenders and other consumer credit firms will start paying their fair share towards funding free debt advice through the Money Advice Service, so the Government are already dealing with many of the issues that have been raised today.
Turning to debt management companies, the Government share the concerns about the potential for detriment to occur to consumers who take out debt management plans. There has been increasing media attention and people are becoming increasingly aware of the problems affecting some consumers. I also recognise the importance of protecting that particularly vulnerable group of consumers. The Government’s focus is on comprehensively reforming regulation in this sector. Responsibility for regulating debt management firms, as with all other consumer credit firms, has been transferred from the OFT to the FCA. As with customers of payday lenders, those participating in debt management plans will be far better protected under the new FCA regime.
The FCA has stated publicly that debt management firms must start putting consumers first and that it is unacceptable that people who are struggling to make ends meet are being talked into unsuitable plans. The Government have made sure that the FCA has robust powers to protect consumers who use debt management firms. The FCA is proactively monitoring the market and has a broad range of enforcement tools that it can use to punish breaches of the rules. There is no limit on the fines it can levy. Crucially, it can force firms to pay redress to consumers. The FCA will thoroughly assess every debt management firm’s fitness to trade as part of the authorisation process—the same process that applies to payday lenders.
Given the risk to consumers, the FCA has said that debt management firms will be in the first phase of credit firms that are required to be fully authorised. Its rules make it clear that the fees charged for debt management plans should not undermine the customer’s ability to make significant repayments to their lenders throughout the duration of the debt management plan. Concerns have been raised, including by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, about the huge proportion of somebody’s payment that, in some cases, goes to the debt management firm rather than the creditors. That is a matter of significant concern.
Mrs Main
Does the Minister think there is any merit in making people aware, potentially at school age, of exactly what they can afford and how they can manage their personal finances? People often get themselves into a mess before they approach some of these loan sharks and high-interest places. It might be good if we started this off at an earlier age.
Jenny Willott
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. There are some really good schemes in schools across the country, but provision can be a bit patchy. I have worked in schools in my constituency that are doing exactly that. Such matters can be extremely complex for people to understand, and learning about them as part of the school curriculum before they get into debt can be extremely helpful.
Justin Tomlinson
I reassure the Minister that, as of September, that will be in the national curriculum, so all is under control.
Jenny Willott
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting that.
Damian Hinds
To complete the set, may I use this opportunity to mention the important work done by credit unions that operate junior savers clubs in schools in the constituencies of many hon. Members? It would be great to have them in many more schools in many more places, so that young people get into a savings habit before they reach the first point at which they might take on consumer credit.
Jenny Willott
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) about that. He raises a very important point: the more we can help young people to understand some of these complex financial systems and how to manage money, hopefully, fewer people will end up in debt—particularly unaffordable debt—in the future.
Returning to the FCA rules on hire-purchase contracts for household goods and what has been called the “BrightHouse clause,” the FCA’s new rules will require firms to provide pre-contractual explanations and information in line with European requirements. I hope that answers the point made by a number of Members on both sides of the House. The information will include the cash price of the goods being financed and the total amount payable. The FCA rules will require that information to be provided to consumers before they sign up. I hope that will ensure greater transparency for customers.
The rules also mean that firms have to adhere to debt-collection rules—a point raised by the hon. Member for Makerfield—including treating customers who are in default or arrears with forbearance and due consideration. They also require firms to assess credit worthiness and affordability, including the potential to impact adversely on the consumer’s financial situation and their ability to make repayments as they fall due. There are, therefore, broad requirements on firms to try to tackle some of the hon. Lady’s concerns about consumer detriment.
When firms sell associated insurance products, they must do so in line with the FCA’s requirements for assessing a consumer’s eligibility to claim on a product and the high-level principle of treating customers fairly. Those are new requirements to ensure that we try to tackle consumer detriment. The Government believe that the tough and decisive action taken by the FCA will ensure that customers are better protected as a result.
Finally, we discussed the issue of logbook loans at some length in Committee and I completely understand the concern about the potential for consumer detriment as a result of these products. The Government believe that people should be free to borrow and have the tools to make an informed decision about which credit product is right for them, but consumers should be confident that they will be treated fairly and that the regulator will step in when things go wrong.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow will be aware, logbook lenders now also fall under the responsibility of the FCA. As I have said with regard to other credit firms, I believe that consumers will be far better protected under the FCA regime than they have been in the past. The FCA has been very clear that logbook lenders are among the firms that it considers pose the greatest risk to consumers, and they will be in the first phase of firms that have to be fully authorised from October. Logbook loans are defined by the FCA as higher risk activities and, as such, lenders face closer supervision and higher regulatory costs.
Logbook loan providers are now also required to meet the standards the FCA expects of lenders in making thorough affordability checks and providing the adequate pre-contractual explanations to consumers. They are also subject to the high-level principle of treating customers fairly. Indeed, the FCA considers this area to be a particular concern. It has said that it is
“putting logbook lenders on notice”,
and that its new rules give it
“the power to tackle any firm found not putting customers’ interests first.”
It is therefore taking its new responsibilities very seriously.
In addition to the FCA’s robust action, Treasury Ministers have asked the Law Commission to look at how best to reform the Bills of Sale Act—as we know, the legislation underpinning logbook loans is old, lengthy and incredibly complex—and, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) highlighted, the Government believe that the Law Commission is best placed to undertake a thorough assessment of how we can bring the legislation up to date. It has responded favourably to the Treasury request, and it will confirm its upcoming work programme soon.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow raised concerns about people buying cars with outstanding loans against them and about the impact on customers. She said that a large proportion of second-hand cars are sold with pre-existing charges. The Bill, like the existing law, is clear that there is a legal obligation on the seller to notify the buyer of any outstanding charges. The Bill covers business-to-consumer sales, and sales between individual consumers have the same level of protection under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which provides that the seller must have the right to sell the goods. That applies to all contracts for the sale of goods, so it covers private sales, in addition to purchases of goods from a shop or a business. Goods must be free from any undisclosed charge or encumbrance, which applies to hire-purchase terms for goods sold on, as well as to logbook loans. The private seller is in breach of contract if they do not have the right to sell, or if there are undisclosed charges on the goods, which means that the buyer can get their money back from the private seller.
The Government are concerned about the impact of unscrupulous traders in all these areas. That is why we have taken so much action and given such strong powers to the Financial Conduct Authority, and I do not believe that the Opposition’s new clauses are the right way forward. The Government’s approach is the right one for protecting consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, and I hope the hon. Member for Walthamstow will withdraw new clause 6.
Stella Creasy
We have had an interesting debate. I acknowledge that there is interest in this issue, as well as experience and expertise, on both sides of the House, which has been reflected in most of the speeches. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) who, for all of us, is a touchstone on issues involving the consumer credit market.
I put on the record my support for the work of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on the credit union movement. However, I must say that I brook no argument from him when Government Members have had three chances—not one, not two, but three chances, or an almost biblical opportunity—to deal with payday lending and the cost of credit, but voted against it.
In 140 characters, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), like Shelley’s grandmother, shed much heat but not a lot of light on what Government Members will do about the issues that are to come. Our new clauses are about the new forms of legal loan sharking and the new nightmares experienced by many of our constituents. The hon. Lady is making a tapping noise. Is that her calculating the amount of money people have to pay out to the debt management and logbook loan companies?
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady is doing herself a disservice. We are not point scoring. Many Government Members have concerns about debt. The tapping noise I was making refers to the fact that she seems unable to listen to comments from Government Members, and just tweets her own self-promotion endlessly.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady may be horrified about letting the public know what she and Government Members have been saying, but we are not. Government Members may be confident in their commitment to the idea that they are somehow tackling the cost of living, but when it comes to opportunities to make progress on such things as logbook loans or debt management fees, they have nothing to say and they should rightly be held to account not just in the House, but online. She would do well to reflect on such matters.
I want to move on to what hon. Members have mentioned in the debate, but may I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) that I consider us to be master and apprentice in our dress today? She pointed out that the Government seem to have a problem with the doors when it comes to voting the right way on consumer credit matters.
Let me pay tribute to the Minister and the members of the Sharkstoppers campaign. To hear a Minister in this Government talking about the action that they will take on payday lending is a tribute to the work of all those campaigners across the country. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt when she says that this Government want to make payday lenders pay their fair share. She was extremely honest about the fact that she has no idea how much money payday lenders will contribute to the cost of providing debt advice. We want to return to the issue in the Lords once we get that information, but we are happy to wait for the Minister to come back with the sums, to show that payday lenders are paying their fair share. We are pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority is looking at the outrageous practice of charging people in debt with debt management fees, and we will wait to see what the Government bring forward, and consider these issues again in the Lords in terms of whether fees should be abolished outright.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Right to full refund: ticketed events—
‘An event organiser must issue a full cash refund where their tickets are returned to them up to 24 hours before the start of the event.’.
New clause 13—Goods to be as described: meat products—
‘(1) All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.
(2) A food outlet is anywhere where food is served to the public.’.
New clause 14—Communications services: change of service provider—
‘(1) Section 3 of the Communications Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (2)(b) insert “with a switching process that is led by the receiving communications service provider”.’.
New clause 15—Right to corrective action—
‘(1) This section applies if either—
(a) the responsible economic actor has identified that goods supplied present a health and safety risk to the consumer; or
(b) the appropriate authority has identified that goods supplied present a risk to the public safety; and
as a result, the product is subject to corrective action by either party (a “recall action”).
(2) The consumer has the right to expect that the responsible economic actor for any goods supplied subject to a recall action must take all reasonable steps to inform all persons affected, or likely to be affected by the safety risks from the goods, within the shortest period of time practicable.
(3) The consumer, if placed at risk by goods subject to a recall action, has the right to prompt and effective action by the economic actor of that product to ensure that—
(a) the defect posing a safety risk to any persons affected or likely to be affected is eliminated;
(b) the actions required to achieve (a) do not cause significant inconvenience to the consumer; and
(c) all costs associated with the recall action are borne by the responsible economic actor.
(4) The Secretary of State will periodically gather and make publicly available information relating to safety incidents caused by recalled goods, and estimates of how many such goods still remain unaccounted for.
(5) The effectiveness of recall actions, and the procedures in place to achieve successful recalls, will be the subject of periodic review by the Secretary of State, with reference to public information on recalls in subsection (4) and any other relevant data.
(6) The Secretary of State may create or designate a body to act as a consumer product safety and recall authority.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the authority to—
(a) act to protect the public from identifiable and unreasonable risks of injury, death or household risk from consumer products;
(b) review products, test products, or receive or commission reports from other competent persons;
(c) direct corrective action to be taken by relevant economic actors, regulators or authorities;
(d) ensure and direct forms of consumer registration, from purchase of products, with databases which will be conducive to optimal fulfilment of (a) and (c) above;
(e) require notification by economic actors, including manufacturers, brand suppliers or traders, of significant evidence of concern in respect of the consumer safety of relevant products; and
(f) provide for accessible, intelligible information and advice to be available to consumers and relevant economic actors in respect of product safety, corrective actions and other guidances relevant to the authority’s work.
(8) For the purposes of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7), the Secretary of State must consult with—
(a) market regulators;
(b) relevant authorities; and
(c) any other bodies he thinks appropriate.
(9) For the purposes of this section “economic actor” means—
(a) a “trader” as defined in section 2(2); or
(b) a manufacturer of “goods” as defined in section 2(8).’.
This new clause would enable new provision to be made regarding recall actions where a level of consumer safety risk has been identified. It would allow the Secretary of State to review and add to arrangements for corrective action for the protection of consumer safety.
New clause 16—Secondary ticketing platforms: product and seller information—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall issue guidance to all traders who operate as secondary ticketing platforms on the application of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
(2) Guidance issued under section (1) shall include how secondary ticketing platforms must inform consumers of—
(a) the chosen identity of the seller;
(b) the country of residence of the seller;
(c) information provided by previous buyers on the reliability of the seller and the tickets he has sold;
(d) information on any complaints made against the seller for failing to supply tickets;
(e) information on any complaints made against the seller for supplying fraudulent or invalidated tickets; and
(f) information on all other accounts currently or previously held with the secondary ticketing platform linked to the seller by virtue of personal, financial and contact information provided by them.
(3) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how information required under Part 2 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 shall be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to purchase.
(4) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how secondary ticketing platforms must disclose clearly if the seller of the ticket is—
(a) the secondary ticketing platform themselves;
(b) individuals employed by the secondary ticketing platform;
(c) other companies linked to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform;
(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on their behalf; or
(e) any other party connected to the event organiser of the event.
(5) Guidance issued under section (1) shall set out the status of tickets as unique goods with distinct characteristics which would affect—
(a) the enjoyment of the good by the consumer;
(b) the use of the good by the consumer; or
(c) the inherent value of the good in questions.
(6) Where a ticket is sold through a secondary ticketing platform, guidance issued under section (1) shall set out how the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 apply to tickets as unique goods, including—
(a) how sellers must provide all relevant information about the ticket including but not limited to the face value of the ticket and a designated seat or ticket number;
(b) how secondary ticketing platforms will publish all the information about a ticket provided by the seller in a prominent and clear way; and
(c) what sanctions will apply for failing to provide this information under the regulations.’.
New clause 17—Secondary ticketing platforms: fraudulent tickets—
‘(1) Where a secondary ticketing platform becomes aware that sellers using their service have acquired tickets through illegal methods, or are selling fraudulent tickets, they have a duty to report this to the relevant law enforcement agency immediately.
(2) A secondary ticketing platform must meet any lawful requests for information on sellers made by law enforcement agencies or courts.
(3) Where a law enforcement agency has notified a secondary ticketing platform that a ticket advertised through their service is, or is suspected to be, fraudulent, the secondary ticketing platform must remove that ticket and suspend the seller’s activities immediately.’.
New clause 18—Secondary ticketing platforms: seller profiles—
‘(1) Secondary ticketing platforms must provide a profile of information on sellers using their service.
(2) Profile information provided under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—
(a) the name of the seller;
(b) the country of residence of the seller;
(c) if the seller is a company or business, its registered number, if any;
(d) if the seller is a company or business, its registered office or address for service;
(e) a list of all current and past inventory sold or offered for sale by the seller;
(f) information on all other accounts currently or previously held with the secondary ticketing platform linked to the seller by virtue of personal, financial and contact information provided by him;
(g) information provided by previous buyers of the reliability of the seller and the tickets he has sold;
(h) information on any complaints made against the seller for failing to supply tickets, and the resolution of those complaints;
(i) the VAT registration number of the seller, if applicable; and
(j) information on any complaints made against the seller for supplying fraudulent or invalidated tickets, and the resolution of those complaints.
(3) Information provided under subsection (1) must be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete their purchase.
(4) Secondary ticketing platforms must disclose clearly and prominently where the seller of the ticket is—
(a) the secondary ticketing platform themselves;
(b) individuals employed by the secondary ticketing platform;
(c) other companies linked to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform;
(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on their behalf; or
(e) any other party connected to the organisation of the event.
(5) Where a seller offers for sale more than 20 tickets to the same event, the secondary ticketing platform must take reasonable steps to verify the validity of the tickets.’.
New clause 19—Secondary ticketing platforms: ticket information—
‘(1) Where a ticket is sold through a secondary ticketing platform—
(a) the seller must provide all relevant information about the ticket; and
(b) the secondary ticketing platform must publish all the information about a ticket provided by the seller in a prominent and clear way.
(2) Information to be requested by the secondary ticketing platform and provided by the seller for the purposes of subsection (1) should include, but is not limited to—
(a) the face value of the ticket;
(b) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket; and
(c) the designated block, row, seat or ticket number, where applicable.
(3) Where tickets are being resold in contravention of the terms and conditions agreed to by the original purchaser, this must be stated prominently by the secondary ticketing platform at every stage of the purchasing process.
(4) Information provided by virtue of this section must be—
(a) accurate; and
(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete their purchase.’.
New clause 20—Secondary ticketing platforms: compensation—
‘(1) Secondary ticketing platforms must reimburse reasonable costs to a buyer where a ticket sold through their service is fraudulent or invalidated.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), reasonable costs must include, but are not limited to—
(a) the price paid for the ticket by the buyer, inclusive of all service and delivery charges;
(b) all travel expenses incurred by the buyer in travelling from their place of residence to the location of the event for which they had purchased the ticket; and
(c) any accommodation expenses incurred by the buyer for the sole purpose of attending the event for which they had purchased the ticket.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), reasonable costs should be defined as a total amount not exceeding twice the total purchase price of the ticket or tickets in question, including all additional fees and taxes paid.
(4) Claims made by a buyer against a secondary ticketing platform under this section must be proven by receipts or other documentary proof.
(5) The secondary ticketing platform must settle any claims under this section within 40 working days, other than where a suspected fraud or abuse related to the transaction in question is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the relevant statutory authority.
(6) Secondary ticketing platforms are permitted to take all necessary action to recover any monies paid out to consumers under this section from the seller of the ticket.’.
New clause 21—Secondary ticketing platforms: definitions—
‘(1) A “secondary ticketing platform” means a person or company operating an internet-based facility for the resale of tickets to events including in the United Kingdom, regardless of the country in which the owner of the service is registered.
(2) A “ticket” means anything which purports to be a ticket, including any item, tangible or intangible, which grants the holder entry to an event.
(3) An “event” means any sporting, music or cultural activity taking place at a specified time and place for which tickets are issued and required for entry or attendance.
(4) An “event organiser” means the person or persons responsible for organising and holding an event and receiving the revenue from the event.
(5) A “fraudulent ticket” means a forged or duplicated ticket.
(6) An “invalidated ticket” means a ticket which has been cancelled by the event organiser, or an agent acting on their behalf, after being issued.’.
New clause 22—Prohibition of fees in contracts for services: letting of residential accommodation—
‘(1) The provisions in this section apply to a contract for a trader to supply a service in connection with the letting of a residential premises.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, any person who demands or accepts payment of any sum of money from a person (“P”) for services in connection with a contract for the letting of residential premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), P is any person—
(a) who seeks to enter a contract to let residential accommodation, or
(b) who has a tenancy of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
“letting” shall include any service provided in connection with the advertisement or marketing of residential accommodation or with the grant or renewal of a tenancy;
“services shall —
(a) include, and are not limited to—
(i) the registration of persons seeking accommodation,
(ii) the selection of prospective occupiers, and
(iii) any work associated with the production or completion of written agreements or other relevant documents.
(b) not include credit checks of person seeking accommodation.
(5) Where a person unlawfully demands or accepts payment under this section in the course of his employment, the employer or principal of that person shall also be guilty of an offence.
(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting payment of rent or a tenancy deposit within the meaning of section 212(8) of the Housing Act 2004.
(7) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section by reason of his demanding or accepting a holding deposit.
(8) A “holding deposit” for the purposes of subsection (7) is—
(a) a sum of money demanded of or accepted from a person, in good faith for the purpose of giving priority to that person in relation to the letting of a specific property, which is to be credited towards the tenancy deposit or rent upon the grant of the tenancy of that property, and
(b) not greater than two weeks rent for the accommodation in question.
(9) Costs incurred by persons seeking accommodation for the undertaking of credit checks shall be reimbursed upon the signing of a tenancy agreement.
(10) In this section, any reference to the grant or renewal of a tenancy shall include the grant or renewal or continuance of a lease or licence of, or other right or permission to occupy, residential premises.
(11) In this section “rent” shall include any occupation charge under a licence.’.
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that those who represent businesses with fewer than 10 employees and are purchasing goods or services for use within their commercial activities will be considered consumers.’.
Government amendments 9 to 14.
Amendment 5, in clause 48, page 30, line 3, leave out from ‘(5)’ to ‘resolution’ and insert ‘may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by’.
Government amendment 15.
Amendment 20, in clause 84, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(2A) Section [Prohibition of fees in contracts for services: letting of residential accommodation] extends only to England.’.
Stella Creasy
Like a pub quiz, we now come to the lucky dip round of the Bill, with a number of different issues being taken together. I am conscious that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am always eager to please.
Let me start with new clause 8. A number of provisions have been proposed to deal with ticket touting—a subject about which I know many Members feel strongly. I shall also deal with new clause 22, which deals with fees. We have already tried today to abolish fees for debt management, and we would now like to abolish fees for tenants, which is what consumers need. I shall also talk about businesses and consumers, new clauses 13 to 15 and the Government amendments.
Ticket touting is an issue about which many of us are concerned. We see the damage it is doing to a range of industries by distorting prices and access to entertainment activities. Ticket bot machines—I am not sure whether all Members are aware of them—are pieces of software that impersonate individual visitors to ticket vendor websites and automatically make multiple ticket purchases. What does that mean in practice? It means that many of us as fans of music, sport or light entertainment do not get a look in. It means that millions of fans have never been able to get a ticket for a range of different events because all the tickets are sold out within minutes: they are sold to a machine, not to fellow fans. Those tickets are then resold at an exorbitant price.
According to Ticketmaster USA, one group of scalpers were requesting 200,000 tickets a day in this way. We certainly know that the secondary ticket market for the resale of tickets is worth up to £1 billion a year. Those MPs who are members of the Monty Python fan club—I see it in many of their speeches as they are certainly “the knights who say ‘Ni!’”—will be aware of the outcry after all the tickets for the Monty Python show disappeared in that way. Perhaps the Monty Python foot will fall on me for making that joke—the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) seems to be making a face to suggest that it should. Those of us who are fans of the Stone Roses were horrified to see the band’s gigs automatically sell out in that way. Tickets for a Kate Bush gig were also taken out. They were originally sold for £49 but within minutes were on a resale site for £490. For the Stone Roses, tickets that should have been a mere £55 were being sold for £1,000 a time—well beyond the means of the average fan of such phenomenal music.
The Secretary of State has claimed that ticket resellers are classic entrepreneurs because they fill a gap that they have identified in the market. With the greatest respect, I fear that the new Secretary of State has misunderstood the market in ticket sales and quite what these businesses are doing by distorting people’s access. He presumes that consumers are able to compete fairly against these automatic machines, but that is simply not the case.
Let me be clear that our amendments are not designed to stop the resale of tickets. I told the Committee and I will tell the House that I was deeply disappointed to have to sit here late one evening and give up my tickets to see the great band, the Wonder Stuff. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) will know of the band’s work. I was looking to resell my ticket and, as a genuine fan, I wanted it to go to another fan so that they could hear the beauty and the wonder that is “Dizzy”.
What we are talking about is finding a way to make this work for the fans and the consumers, rather than the botnets. Our new clauses deal with the three clear issues. First, we want to apply to the secondary market the guidance about what information should be provided to a consumer when buying a product. There is clearly a gap in which these companies are profiting. There is confusion and a lack of information about what people are being sold. Some of us have had constituents tell us that they have been sold a ticket through a secondary reseller market only to find that it is a fake.
Secondly, we want to give greater protection for events of national significance. We know that there is widespread concern across the sporting industry about the real fans being locked out of games by these kinds of practices. I want to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and the tireless campaigning he has done on the forthcoming rugby world cup. Millions of fans will not be able to attend events because of the actions of these companies and the touts.
Thirdly, we want to strengthen co-operation between the enforcement agencies and the secondary sites so that there is more protection for consumers and we can all be confident that when we buy a ticket for something, it is what we think it is and we can get a ticket in the first place.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend’s suggested reforms be able to deal with the appalling situation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) whereby tickets for next year’s rugby world cup in the Cardiff Millennium centre—good stadium that it is—are now on sale for £1,560 for a £250 ticket? I would have thought that £250 is enough for the average rugby follower, but £1,560 is an absolute disgrace.
Stella Creasy
The new clauses and amendments would deal with that. I understand that the tickets for the rugby world cup are not yet formally on sale. The fact that they are already being marketed on secondary sites at such prices demonstrates the scale of the problem that we need to tackle.
I pay tribute to the tremendous and tireless work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who will speak about her new clauses later. I also pay tribute to what has been done by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley). I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has also tabled a new clause on this subject, shares the widespread concern that is felt.
Stella Creasy
I will, but only briefly, because I am conscious of the time, and I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about a number of new clauses and amendments himself.
Philip Davies
Given what the hon. Lady said about not wanting to encourage the secondary ticket market, may I take it as read that she will support my new clause 12, which would guarantee people a refund from the organiser if they are not able to go to the event? If they cannot go and they cannot get a refund, they will not have much choice other than to sell the ticket on.
Stella Creasy
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s new clause responds to a slightly different challenge, and presents a practical challenge in relation to how it could be applied, but let me make one thing very clear, in case he did not hear me say it the first time. We are not suggesting that there should not be a market for the selling on of tickets; we are saying that what the ticket touts are doing is distorting the market for consumers. That is separate from the issue of whether people can obtain a refund within 24 hours. Let me caution the hon. Gentleman that some aspects of his proposal may not work in a practical sense, whereas we are presenting practical proposals.
New clause 8, in particular, has learnt the lessons of the Olympic and paralympic games. Tickets for those games were given particular protection to enable people to be confident that they could obtain them. The London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 levied fines of up to £5,000 for the reselling of tickets at a profit. The Home Secretary increased that to £20,000, citing the threat from serious and organised criminal groups. We know that ticket touting is being used to support a range of criminal activities. New clause 8 relates to events of national significance. Let us make sure that rugby fans can go to the world cup: it surely cannot be all that difficult to legislate for that.
New clause 16 seeks to get to the root of the problem, which is that people do not necessarily know what they are being sold. A unique identifier is a simple way in which to ensure that when someone buys a ticket, it is a ticket for a particular gig, show or match. The venues themselves will have already given out identifying information, whether it is a seat number or a stall number. We are suggesting that they should be required to provide that information at the point of sale, so that people can be confident about what they are buying. That will enable the event organisers to identify those in, for instance, rugby clubs who are already selling on tickets that they have been given and are misusing their relationship to give out the information.
We think that that accords very well with what the Minister said in Committee about the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, which she believed would address the issues related to selling. She said that they
“set out…the information that a trader should provide to a consumer for all distance sales—which would include tickets”.
In particular, she said that they gave details of
“the main characteristics of the goods”.––[Official Report, Consumer Rights Public Bill Committee, 25 February 2014; c. 183.]
We believe that new clause 16 would simply put that into practice in the context of the secondary ticketing market, providing clarity for all who are concerned about what they are buying. It accords with consumer regulation, and we hope that the Government will support it, even if they fear that some of the other new clauses relating to ticket touting would be difficult to implement. We certainly hope that they will listen to the clarion call from new clause 8. Surely everyone, in the House and outside, agrees that it cannot be right for us not to be confident that it is the fans who are able to obtain tickets to attend events of sporting significance, whether they obtain them online or offline.
I know that other Members want to talk about ticket touting, and I shall therefore move on to the subject of letting agents’ fees.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
The city of Glasgow is about to host the Commonwealth games, and a great deal of effort has been put into safeguarding tickets. Some of us have been shouting for a long time “Make ticket touting illegal!” Once it is illegal, we can take care of the other little bits and pieces, but should we not make it illegal right now so that we can know exactly where we are?
Stella Creasy
The new clauses and amendments are designed to make progress on issues of precisely that kind. One of the problems of ticket touting is trying to identify who is responsible for the crime that is taking place. Making the seller of the ticket give the details of that ticket will enable us to identify its provenance and who is selling it. We shall then be able to crack down on the people involved, whether it involves the rugby world cup or another event, so that organisations will not have their tickets sold on when they do not wish that to happen. It will give that kind of flexibility, and it reflects the all-party group work done on some of these issues. I hope there will be support from across the House.
Stella Creasy
If the hon. Lady wants to suggest some tweets, I will happily take them, but I am sure everyone will appreciate it if we can move on to the question of letting fees.
Stella Creasy
There are already criminal elements to what we are talking about. What we are talking about in this legislation is the information provided to a consumer—this is, after all, a consumer rights Bill—that could help address the problems caused by ticket touting, and it reflects the work being done by the all-party group. [Interruption.] Well, this is a separate issue about what we can do for consumers, and with that in mind I want to move on to new clause 22 because, as I have said, there is a lucky dip element to the amendments before us and it is about letting fees.
I pay tribute to the work done in this area by my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East. I see first hand in my constituency the problems caused by increasingly difficult access to housing and affordable housing, particularly within the private rented sector. We know that 9 million people in England are living in rented homes and they are paying on average over £1,000 more a year in rent than they did in 2010. That is why we have to reform the private rented sector. The costs that people are facing are unsustainable. I have families in my constituency spending between 60% and 70% of their monthly income on rent alone. They cannot make ends meet.
There is a wider debate to be had about the length of tenancies and the levels of rent, but this amendment, like the previous amendments I was speaking to, relates to consumer legislation, and in particular the specific issue of fees and whether they should be charged.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The issue my hon. Friend is outlining, and that our colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), the current shadow Housing Minister, has raised, is very important. It is particularly an issue for us in Blackpool and many other seaside towns, where, because of degrees of internal transience, some families have to move two or three times a year. That exacerbates the whole issue of letting fees.
Stella Creasy
I entirely agree. We see it in London as well, where people are having to move: every single time they move a fee is applied, and those fees are extortionate and are anti-consumer, as I shall explain.
The average such fee is about £355, but there are great variations. In my constituency of Walthamstow, in the work we have done on the “home sweet home” campaign, we found some fees as high as £827. We found renters being asked to pay fees for having pets, for having their houses cleaned and for a whole range of other practices, and we can see the consequences. We also know that 94% of letting agencies impose a fee on top of rent in advance and a deposit. There is therefore a huge sum of money for people to find. One constituent had to find £4,000 before he and his family could move into a property.
One in seven of those who use an agency are charged over £500 in agency fees before finding the deposit or rent in advance. Mystery shopping by Shelter found that some renters are routinely being charged £700. Over the past three years, one in four people who have dealt with a letting agency have said they have had to borrow money to pay that fee, which is of relevance to our previous debate. One in six is cutting down on food or heating to meet the cost of that fee, and four in 10 experience money worries as a direct result of that fee. If that fee is being applied every single year because people are moving again and again, we can see how quickly these sums can cause huge problems for consumers.
Some, perhaps those on one side of the coalition, will say what we need to do is make sure there is transparency. Certainly we explored whether people knowing the kind of fees they were facing—if everyone was upfront about the amount of money they were going to charge as a fee for introducing clients to a landlord, for example—could be one way of addressing this. That is a bit like somebody being tied to the train tracks and being told the train timetable, however, because in the current market many tenants have little option but to try to borrow to find that fee and then deal with the financial consequences. While I appreciate that one half of the coalition has now understood that fees are a challenge, the argument that simply knowing how much those fees are is enough in itself to deal with these problems simply does not wash. And nor does capping fees, because it is anti-consumer to have two different organisations paying for the same service. That is what we are talking about here: a form of double-charging. How can both the landlord and the tenant pay for the same service at the same time and the agent act in the interests of both? How can a landlord be confident that they are getting the best tenants if the agent also has the tenant’s interests at heart? How can a tenant be confident that they are getting a decent landlord if the landlord is also being acted for by the agent? This is fundamentally an anti-competitive practice and we think it is therefore time to act. Our new clause would do something very simple: it would clarify that renters could not be charged a fee.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady rightly talks about the difficulties that many people face in trying to find the money to pay these fees, but is it her assumption, and that of the Opposition, that were letting fees to be banned, that source of revenue would disappear for the agents but they would not seek to reclaim it elsewhere?
Stella Creasy
It is not simply an assumption; it is based on the evidence we have seen from Scotland, which is that this money would be incorporated in the centre of the tenancy and so that the landlord would pay the fee. We would expect the tenant to pay one fee—the credit referencing fee—but once the tenancy was secure and the landlord could therefore be confident that the person was back in the place, we would expect it to be refunded. We are very clear that the practice of charging fees to both parties at the same time is a conflict of interest and therefore needs to be addressed, which is what our proposal would do. It would spread the fee over the course of the tenancy.
Damian Hinds
Just to complete the point, is it also the hon. Lady’s assumption, and that of the Opposition, that were landlords to face greater fees, they would not seek to recoup that extra cost in some other way?
Stella Creasy
One issue is what landlords are charging for. I see landlords who are charging twice for credit referencing, because they are charging the landlord and the tenant that fee. [Interruption.] The presumption the hon. Gentleman makes is that all the fees are for different activities—
Stella Creasy
Our presumption is that the fees would then be taken on by the landlord and taken as part of the tenancy agreement. Our approach would resolve the problems we are seeing for tenants and the conflict of interest over whom the agent would act for. Our proposal is about making sure we deal with that conflict, particularly how for landlords and for tenants it creates a series of perverse incentives whereby both can be charged for the same service.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The problem is that if the letting agency loses an income it will seek to get it from elsewhere, so it is likely to increase its charges to the landlord. The landlord will then seek to recover that money, and from whom will the landlord seek to recover it? From the tenant.
Stella Creasy
I simply do not accept the picture the hon. Gentleman is painting. Scotland has banned fees on tenants, and the experience there has been an increase in the number of letting agents and no effect on the rents people are paying. The evidence shows that, as with the payday lenders, when we give tenants the muscle to remove this fee, the market shapes up. We have not seen an increase in the fees that tenants are facing; nor have we seen an exit from the market. Some of the fears the hon. Gentleman might have, which I understand, are not well founded, because a lot of the fees tenants are being asked to pay are not indicative of a service being provided; they are indicative of a profit-making machine. We are trying to deal with the detriment caused by the ability of agents to charge fees to two parties at the same time. By making this a fee for the landlord, it is clear whose interest the agent is acting in.
As I say, we have dealt with the particular issue here, because we have listened to the landlords and letting agents who have expressed concerns about tenants who may not be what they seem. In that instance, there would be a case for being able to charge a fee to the tenant which would be refunded, but the alternative of letting this practice continue and seeing the kind of fees that we are seeing, and therefore the problems that are being caused, is also unsustainable. I hope that Government Members, particularly those who have now recognised there is a problem with the fees in themselves, will go that stage further and recognise that there is a problem with this form of double-charging, support our proposals and learn from the experience in Scotland on this issue.
As I am conscious of the time, I shall move on; I appreciate that there are a number of Members who wish to speak in this debate. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Hampshire, who has made many useful contributions this afternoon, will get to speak in the following debate.
I briefly want to speak to amendment 6. It may come as a surprise to some to see the Government resisting the work of the Federation of Small Businesses, which is trying to help small businesses that are struggling with their consumer contracts. Members in this House may have first-hand experience of that, as we are, after all, small businesses and will have dealt with business-to-business contracts, and many may not realise that they have different levels of consumer protection as a result.
The FSB has recently published a report on small businesses which points out that it makes much more sense to give micro-businesses the same consumer protection as private individuals. After all, it is unreasonable to expect a micro-business to have the same level of legal qualification and expertise to deal with a contract as that of a larger body, and that is what amendment 6 addresses. I note that the FSB has given its support to this amendment. I was surprised when the Minister said earlier that the FSB did not support giving consumer rights to businesses. That has not been the briefing that we have had from it; indeed, it supports this amendment. Will the Minister set out when she expects to give small businesses the kind of consumer protection they need, because it will be one fewer worry for them?
I wish now to touch on some of the other new clauses. New clause 14 deals with Ofcom and switching. We certainly think this is a good idea, and we wish to see the Government following it through. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was not here earlier when we were debating new clause 3 and new schedule 1 and making it easier for consumers to be able to switch. We recognise that there are problems. It is unusual for the UK, by comparison with other nations, to have this issue, and it will be interesting to know whether the Minister is considering it.
I look forward to the hon. Member for Shipley making his case for new clause 13. I certainly agree that transparency is important. The laws governing animal welfare at slaughter, at both EU and UK level, require animals to be stunned before slaughter, but they make an exemption to that requirement for religious slaughter, which is carried out by members of the Jewish and Muslim communities.
We are concerned about whether this amendment has a significant effect on animal welfare and implications beyond that. In particular, we must ensure that our laws strike the right balance between concern for animal welfare, which many of us have, transparency for consumers and respect for the traditions of different businesses and different communities. We also recognise that a lot of work has already been done on this matter in the European Union, and it would be sensible to learn some of the lessons on the wider issues such as how goods and foods are labelled. It will be interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s views on that—perhaps not on Europe but on the research that is being done.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to make a law that caused confusion in this area rather than clarity. He focuses on halal and kosher food, but the Opposition believe that respect implies an active attitude towards others rather than a passive attitude, and certainly our position is to seek proper engagement with all faith groups before we move forward on such a measure.
Let me turn now to new clause 15, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). We supported it in Committee and would support it again. It is an incredibly important amendment and I urge Members to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. We do not believe it is acceptable to leave it to consumers to know whether they have a death trap in their house.
Finally, I want to say a bit about Government amendments 14 to 20 and the very welcome U-turn that seems to have been made. In Committee, we were concerned that consumers could be left waiting many months for a refund, but the Minister suggested that the Government believed there were potential disadvantages of introducing a time limit that outweighed the benefits that such a change could bring. We suggested 30 days in which to get a refund, so I am absolutely delighted that the Government have gone one stage further and said that people should get their money back in 14 days. That gives me great hope that while the Minister may be saying “computer says no” at the moment to some of the things that we have been talking about today and in Committee, we will see further concessions in due course. We shall welcome them accordingly.
Philip Davies
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I was, surprisingly, rather encouraged by her response to my amendments. It could be a red-letter day for me, getting support across the House for some of my amendments.
I want to focus mainly on new clause 13, which is about the labelling of halal and kosher meat at the point of sale. With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will seek to press it to a vote, should the opportunity arise. It is an issue of great importance to the public, and we have heard an awful lot of commentary on it in the media and among many of our constituents in recent weeks. They would appreciate seeing where their Member of Parliament stands on the issue.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
When the hon. Gentleman says that the issue is of great importance to the country, he means the Daily Mail and The Sun.
Philip Davies
The hon. Lady needs to get out more, to be perfectly honest. She would find that there is widespread concern about the issue. She can vote accordingly and should not have anything to fear from a debate or a vote. I do not see why she should seek to object to either thing—that is what we are supposed to be here in Parliament to do, after all.
As you know better than anyone, Mr Deputy Speaker, I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber, but I am well aware of the time limitations and that other Members want to speak. I have given way once, but I will try to resist the temptation to give way many times because I want to hear what others have to say, too, and there is a lot to get through.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am sorry to test my hon. Friend’s resolve so early in his speech, but this is an important point. On reflection, does he not agree that his new clause on halal meat—[Interruption]—and kosher could have been better drafted? If we are to have labelling, is it not important that the labelling specifies whether the meat was pre-stunned halal or non-pre-stunned?
Philip Davies
I have resolve, but I can seldom resist giving way to my right hon. Friend. Animal welfare is a big issue for lots of people, but it is not the only one. Many other faith groups are concerned about the blessing given to the meat before sale, and his proposal would not address their particular concerns. My new clause has been drafted with all such people in mind, because the issue is bigger than one only of animal welfare. Animal welfare is an important element, but not the only element. I will come on to that later.
I want to start, however, with new clause 12, which relates to ticketing. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that my new clause had nothing to do with her new clauses, but nothing could be further from the truth—it very much has. We know what her long-term agenda is, because she let it slip in an intervention: ultimately, she wants to see the end of ticket touting and the secondary sale of tickets. I think that that would be a massive retrograde step. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, on which I serve, looked into the matter in the previous Parliament and found that such activities were a legitimate area of business. The Office of Fair Trading, as well as the Committee, found that it works in the consumer’s best interest.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Philip Davies
I will stick to my resolve. The hon. Lady and I have locked horns on the issue over years. If anyone wants to look at our previous debates, they can go back to Hansard and see them all rehearsed there. I am sure that she will get the opportunity to have her say in a bit.
Fifty per cent. of tickets on viagogo are sold at a loss, so the idea that all people touting tickets are selling them at huge profits is simply not true; most are sold at a loss. The principle is this: if I buy a ticket, as far as I am concerned it belongs to me. I should be able to do with that ticket what I choose to do, including selling it on to someone else, as I can with any other commodity. Other products have limited editions, which are popular, such as designer handbags or Buzz Lightyear toys from years back, and people go in, buy the lot for a small amount and sell them on at an inflated price on eBay a few hours later. If the Labour party wants to ban that happening with tickets, presumably it will say that that kind of behaviour should be banned as well. That is complete nonsense.
Event organisers do not lose out at all, because all the tickets are sold at the price that they wanted to get for them—all the income that they wanted is delivered. The idea that real fans will be deprived of going to an event is complete nonsense. If someone is prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket, you can bet your bottom dollar that they are a real fan. Not many people are prepared to pay £1,500 for a ticket for something that they do not really care about going to. It actually guarantees that real fans go.
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
If I have a ticket to the Lords test match, for example, or to the rugby world cup final, and I go into my local pub and someone says to me, “It is my lifetime ambition to go there, I would give £4,000 for a ticket,” what is wrong with my saying that I will give up my ticket and they can go instead? Everybody is happy, nobody has lost out, but Labour want to interfere with people’s aspirations. Why should that be banned? If someone does not want to pay the higher price, they should not pay it. Nobody is forced to pay the inflated prices if they do not want to.
If the secondary sale of tickets bothers event promoters so much, why do they not do something practical to stop it? Why sell all the tickets in one go, for example? Why not hold them back? Why put them all on sale so that they are sold within 43 seconds, meaning that they can be resold at inflated prices? If promoters are so bothered, why not sell tickets bit by bit, week by week, month by month so that there are still tickets available the week before the event? That would remove the secondary ticketing market, but they choose not to do it. That can only lead me to presume that the event organisers are shedding crocodile tears, as they are happy to get all the money from the tickets being snapped up.
An ICM poll showed that 83% agreed with the premise:
“Once I’ve bought a ticket it is my property and I should be able to sell it to just as I can any other private property.”
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way.
This situation is very similar to the one I experienced when I was at Asda and we broke the net book agreement. Publishers had the right to set the price of books and nobody could undercut it, but Asda went to court and broke that agreement so now books can be sold at any price the retailer wants. It seems to me that Labour wants to go back to a time when publishers of books could set the price for books and ticket providers could set the price for tickets and nobody could do anything about it.
New clause 12, which guarantees that an event organiser must give somebody a refund up to 24 hours before an event, is essential if the Opposition want to get their way. If they want to ban somebody from selling on a ticket for the rugby world cup final, the only option for somebody who has bought a ticket and cannot go would be a refund. On too many occasions, event organisers will not allow refunds for events so what on earth is the customer supposed to do in such circumstances? The Opposition will not support insisting that they get a refund and they want to ban them from selling the ticket on, so somebody will be left with a ticket that they can do absolutely nothing with. How on earth can that be in the best interest of the consumer?
On the subject of the rugby world cup final, if people from New Zealand buy a lot of tickets for the final in the expectation that their team will get there only for it to be knocked out in the semi-final, we need a mechanism by which those fans can sell on their tickets to the fans of the team that will be in the final instead. It seems that the Opposition have not even thought about that prospect. The secondary market in tickets is an efficient way of getting tickets from one group of people to another so that the real fans can go. If Labour had its way, the real fans would not be able to go because they would be blocked from using any mechanism to get there.
I want to concentrate on new clause 13, which says:
“All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.”
For the purposes of the new clause, I have defined a food outlet as
“anywhere where food is served to the public.”
I have done that because I specifically wanted to include places such as schools and hospitals, as I think many parents and patients are concerned about food that they do not know the provenance or background of, and that information is important to them.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
If that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention, his clause is far too simplistic. Does he not agree that in the interests of fairness and consumer transparency consumers have the right to know about the origins of non-religiously slaughtered meat, whether that meat has been stunned or not, if it has been stunned what method was used and the method of non-religious slaughter? That is a lot of information, but observant Muslims or Jews would like that information as well as people who object.
Philip Davies
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. She seems to be making the point that we need more labelling, not less. If she is saying that my new clause is a step, but it does not go as far as she would like it to go, I am happy to take that criticism on the chin.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I support further labelling, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong to look at religious slaughter in isolation from other forms of slaughter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) said? Labelling could give information about how the animals lived—their housing, food and drug consumption. Why is he picking on religious communities in his new clause?
Philip Davies
Let me make something clear. I am not picking on anyone. I do not want to ban anything. People want to buy religiously slaughtered meat, although that may not be my choice. It is Labour Members who want to ban everything that they do not happen to like. That is not my style. I happen to believe in freedom of choice, and I want people who want to buy religiously slaughtered meat to be free to make that choice. Equally, people who specifically do not want to buy that meat should be free to make that choice. So this is not about picking on anyone. It is not about trying to ban anybody from doing anything.
I do not really see who loses out from the new clause. It is to the advantage of those people who want to buy halal and kosher meat and to the advantage of those who specifically do not that meat is properly labelled. So I do not see who the victim of my new clause is. Everyone is a winner. It is to everybody’s advantage that meat is properly labelled and above board so that everyone knows that what they are buying is what they want to buy. That is the only intention behind my new clause; there is no other objective. I am not seeking to ban anything or stop anybody from doing anything they want to do. I merely seek to allow people to make an informed choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asks why. The simple reason is that there is a huge demand for labelling out in the country—there certainly is in my constituency. That is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this very issue two years ago. It was defeated by three votes, largely by the politically correct brigade on the Opposition Benches. It was a big issue in my constituency then. I contend that it is an even bigger issue today. It has not mushroomed out of nowhere. There is widespread customer demand that proper information be given so that people can make an informed choice.
Philip Davies
I have said that I must make some headway.
British legislation requires the stunning of animals before slaughter, with the religious exemptions that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) made clear. Religious traditions sometimes require people to slaughter without stunning. The exemption dates back to the Slaughter of Animals (Scotland) Act 1928 and the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which applies to England and Wales. The EU also granted derogations from stunning regulations for religious communities.
In recent years, animal groups, most notably the Farm Animal Welfare Council, have advocated labelling of some meat to decrease the amount purchased, thereby reducing the amount of unstunned meat, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) said.
Neither the British Parliament nor the European Parliament has passed a law that requires labelling of unstunned meat, but there has been much debate about it in the past. My new clause would make it compulsory for halal and kosher meat to be labelled because, as a strong believer in freedom of choice, I think that one of the fundamental rights of the consumer is to know what they are purchasing.
I spent 12 years working for Asda before I entered the House. Some of the supermarkets are reluctant to do anything about this because it is inconvenient for them to go through the food chain to provide the labelling. When I was at Asda, I was taught that we were in business to do what was best for the customer—to do what the customer wanted, not what was for our convenience. I am rather worried that that attitude is slipping in some of our supermarket chains. It is not about what is most convenient for them; I do not care about that. They should be delivering what their customers want, and there is no doubt that this is what customers want to see.
Consumers cannot satisfy their preferences at present because not all meat products are labelled. Therefore, legislation requiring labelling is essential for consumers to exercise their right to make an informed decision.
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way.
I would much prefer it if legislation was not required. I am not the type of person who wants to rush to legislation, but in the two years since my ten-minute rule Bill was introduced absolutely nothing has happened. There have been plenty of opportunities for the retailers to sort this out for themselves, and they have failed spectacularly to do anything about it.
This is important. According to the EU DIALREL project, the exemption from religious slaughter in schedule 12 to the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 clearly states that the exemption applies to people of that religion—not to everybody. That implies that halal and kosher meat should be consumed by those of Muslim and Jewish faiths respectively, because that type of slaughter is specified for their religious needs. That is clearly not the case, because Muslims make up a small proportion of the UK population, yet the Halal Food Authority estimated two years ago that halal meat makes up 25% of the meat market. I suspect that the figure is even higher. Similarly, approximately 70% of kosher meat that is sold is not consumed by the Jewish community.
We are going far beyond the exemption that was designed for those people with their particular religious beliefs. There have been cases of schools, hospitals, pubs, sports arenas, cafés, markets and hotels serving halal meat to customers without their knowledge. I am led to believe that it even happened in the House of Commons canteens in 2010. To my dismay as a former retailer, it has certainly happened in some of the larger supermarket chains, and in some of the largest food outlets such as Pizza Hut, Domino’s and KFC. It has also happened in schools. In 2010, Harrow council faced a massive protest after announcing a plan to serve halal-only menus in the borough’s state primary schools, and parents complained that it was forced on them against their will.
Some 98% of consumers in the 2004 Co-op survey of consumer attitudes to the ethics of the food industry stated that they supported the humane treatment of animals. Considering that some halal and kosher meats are slaughtered without pre-stunning, many such consumers would not buy the meat if they were aware of what it was. Interestingly, Massood Khawaja, president of the Halal Food Authority, stated in September 2010:
“As Muslims have a choice of eating halal meat, non-Muslims should also have the choice of not eating it. Customers should know it is halal meat.”
An amendment to induce the compulsory labelling of unstunned halal and kosher meat and products would give consumers more freedom of choice, increase market efficiency, as retailers are enabled to respond to customer demand, and help to protect animal welfare rights.
It is not just me who thinks that. The Sikh Council UK has put out a statement agreeing with that. It believes that everyone has the right to purchase and consume food in accordance with their religious beliefs. Hindus have said that they, too, agree with my new clause, and believe the same thing. Many of these groups do not focus on animal welfare but specifically object to the religious blessing that goes with the practice. I will conclude with this particular point about halal and kosher meat. I do not know if hon. Members read the article by Taj Hargey, the director of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford and the imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, who said that the practice is
“covert religious extremism and creeping Islamic fundamentalism making its way into Britain by the back door. It is completely wrong that the food sensitivities of Britain’s Muslims—who amount to just 4.8% of the population—should take precedence over the other 95%. Halal meat should never be forced on customers without their knowing, surreptitiously and using clandestine methods. It’s unfair to everyone, non-Muslims and Muslims alike.”
He also said that the idea that Muslims cannot eat non-halal meat is completely wrong, and
“has no theological basis in the Koran, the supreme text of Islam.”
He said:
“I’m a dedicated Muslim, a devout religionist, an imam and intellectual scholar of Islam, but I eat whatever food is placed before me, with the obvious exception of pork. If you’re kind enough to invite me to your home, I would eat whatever meat you chose to serve”.
He concluded:
“It is high time the white, liberal, Guardian-reading classes stopped behaving like apologists and woke up. There is a fundamentalist Trojan horse in our midst, and we must take corrective action.”
Many people in this country are demanding that this House take the action that they would like to see.
Mrs Hodgson
I am delighted to be able to speak on new clauses 18 to 21, which stand in my name and those of the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and other hon. Friends. I add my support to new clauses 8, 16 and 17, which were tabled by my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench and ably argued for by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) this afternoon and in Committee.
New clause 18 follows directly from the conclusions and recommendations of the recent excellent report by the all-party group on ticket abuse. I want to put on the record my thanks to colleagues across the House and all the outside experts who contributed to that excellent report. We found that the existence of a secondary market for event tickets is justified by the need of genuine consumers to pass on tickets that they can no longer use. To some extent, that is because event holders are not very good at facilitating refunds or exchange mechanisms, even though they sell tickets many months in advance of the event.
On that point, I will speak briefly to new clause 12. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—he is not listening now—would not allow any interventions, because I wanted to correct for the record some of the errors in what he said. He is right that we have regularly locked horns on the issue, but that does not mean I will sit back and not seek to correct him when I think he is wrong. First, the Opposition are seeking not to ban the resale of tickets, but to regulate and reform the market in the interests of consumers through these very sensible cross-party proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow did not “allude”—I think that was the word he used—to trying to ban the resale of tickets.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Shipley was incorrect to claim that no one gives refunds at the moment. The Rugby Football Union guarantees full refunds for high-demand matches—I am sure that the world cup would qualify—up to an hour before kick-off. It also provides legitimate resale platforms. This ensures that any investment goes back into the sport of rugby. The England and Wales Cricket Board has established ticket exchanges at each venue and centrally so that a supporter who can no longer attend a match or has a spare can legitimately re-sell their ticket. Those are just two examples among many more that are out there.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that new clauses 16 and 18 are particularly powerful, because they would enable us to identify the power sellers—the people who buy tickets on an almost industrial scale, and by doing so corner the market, rip off consumers and push up prices? Unless we do so, it is more likely that £250 tickets for the rugby world cup can be sold for over £1,000, as is happening at the moment. That has to be a bad thing, and we must stop it.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree with my hon. Friend. I thank him for his work in the all-party group in producing the report that has led and informed us in tabling the new clauses.
Our report recommended that the live event industry should do more to provide refunds. The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley could be ruinous for the live event industry while removing all the risk for the industrial touts of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke. Most touts will aim to sell their tickets on the internet about four days in advance, so under the hon. Gentleman’s plans, any they do not manage to sell for a profit they could simply give back to the promoter for a full refund the day before, by which time the promoter will be unlikely to be able to sell them all on again. I fear that rather than helping ordinary consumers, as the hon. Gentleman has no doubt argued, that would mean more tickets being acquired by ticket touts who no longer face the uncertainty of whether they will be able to shift them, thereby manipulating the supply even more than they already do. A better balance would be to give refunds up to a reasonable point before the event, with facilitated resale after that if the event has sold out—as we set out in our report, which I hope the industry will take on board.
While accepting that there is a role for a legitimate secondary ticket market, the all-party group found considerable problems with how this market, which is estimated to be worth about £1 billion a year, works at present. In particular, we found that it does not adhere to the same principles of transparency and consumer protection that other markets are held to. To address these shortcomings, we have put together some modest proposals which, far from driving ticket resale underground, as some of those involved in it have claimed, would increase consumer confidence in the secondary market and therefore be very good for business.
Our first two new clauses address the lack of transparency. New clause 18 is about who is selling the ticket. It would place a duty on secondary ticketing platforms to provide basic identifying information about the individual or business offering a particular ticket or set of tickets for sale. It would allow consumers to say how prolific and reliable a particular seller is—in other words, whether they are a tout or a fellow fan and, if they are a tout, whether the tickets they have sold in the past have been as advertised. That would make the secondary ticketing platforms a lot more like the other internet marketplaces that many of use regularly and with confidence, such as eBay, Amazon and Play.com.
Importantly, the new clause would also require secondary ticketing platforms to be transparent in cases where the seller is also the event holder. The practice of event organisers secretly allocating whole blocks of tickets directly to the secondary market has been on the rise, due to the failure of successive Governments to intervene in the market on behalf of consumers or the creative sector. It was exposed in the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme, “The Great Ticket Scandal”, broadcast in 2012. I cannot blame those who do this. They cannot stop the touts, who have not contributed in any way to the event—unlike the artist, the venue, the agent, the promoter, and so on—from making huge profits off the back of their hard work, so why not try to make some of that money for themselves, or, as I like to see it, have a piece of the poacher’s pie? That is their decision, but they should have to be transparent about it. Hiding behind the secondary market and allowing fans to believe that the ticket they are buying has been sold at face value before and they are buying from a third party is simply dishonest.
There is also a dishonest practice whereby a secondary ticketing platform or its employees or shareholders buy and sell tickets themselves, as the “Dispatches” programme also exposed. Employees of the platforms featured were shown with catalogues of credit cards, trying to buy as many tickets as possible to gigs. A leaked operations manual sent to me shortly after “Dispatches” aired showed that that was also a key part of the viagogo business model. The manual showed, among other things, that a company called Andro Capital, which was linked to viagogo’s then chief executive, Eric Baker, was also its most favoured power seller. Interestingly, a box at the start of the chapter explaining such dealing to employees stressed:
“Not only do we have private and power sellers, we also sell tickets on the website. PLEASE NOTE THAT NEITHER SELLERS NOR BUYERS SHOULD KNOW THAT WE ARE THE SELLER OF CERTAIN TICKETS. NOR SHOULD ANY OF THE INFORMATION BELOW BE DIVULGED TO OUR POWER SELLERS!”
Viagogo has since said that it has abandoned that practice, and Christoph Homann of GetMeIn! also assured the all-party group in his evidence that it does not itself buy tickets, either. In that case, they will not be affected by the new duty and have no reason to oppose it. Even if they or other secondary ticketing platforms still engage in such dealing, I can see no good reason why the law should permit them to keep that information secret from their consumers when it may make a material difference to a buying decision. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will consider adopting the measure.
I have mentioned the Channel 4 “Dispatches” investigation into the problems and I am also pleased to inform the House that the BBC’s “Watchdog” is also very keen on highlighting them. Indeed, they will feature in its shows on 21 and 28 May, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be glued to their TVs, watching them. “You and Yours” on Radio 4 also runs regular features on the issue, as do numerous national newspapers, including The Mirror, the Daily Mail and The Times, as well as trade magazines, such as the excellent Audience.
New clause 19 relates to the transparency of the product itself—that is, the ticket. Knowing the characteristics of a ticket would in many cases make a material difference to a buying decision, particularly in the case of seated events, in which a person’s position in the venue can make a significant difference to their enjoyment of the performance or the experience. Providing that information —or, indeed, the ticket number when there is general admission to the event—would also give consumers the confidence that the individual or company selling the ticket actually has tickets in hand and is not just speculating that they will be able to provide them at a later date. When a consumer wants to buy a number of tickets, the information will help them to ensure that they get seats together or at least close by.
The secondary platforms themselves were asked about that as part of the all-party group’s inquiry. StubHub said in its evidence that it requires seat information to be provided, but an investigation of its website shows that such information appears to be hit and miss. On the whole, it tended to be single tickets, which were probably being sold by ordinary fans, that had full information, while listings of two, four, six or more tickets, which were probably being sold by a professional, did not.
One of the other key pieces of information of which a consumer should be aware is a ticket’s original face value, which in many cases is another indicator of the quality of the product. In their evidence to the inquiry, representatives from the Rugby Football Union said that the cheapest tickets at Twickenham—those they keep cheap to try to get families to come along and to encourage grass-roots participation—often end up being resold at higher prices than some of their premium tickets, some of which may still be available.
Many consumers who are less conscious of how these secondary markets work think that because they are paying more for a ticket, they will get a premium service or seat. Many others do not even know that the website they are using is a secondary market rather than the primary or official source, given that such sites pay significant sums to show up first in Google rankings. Making sure that consumers are made aware of the original price of the ticket they are buying at the earliest opportunity, not just on the last screen—if at all—therefore gives them another piece of the information that they need to make an informed choice about whether to enter into such a purchase.
Mike Weatherley
I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on a thorough interpretation of the new clauses.
Music, theatre, comedy and sport are a vital part of British society and the British economy, and our creative industries are worth more than £36 billion a year. They generate £70,000 every minute for the UK economy, and employ 1.5 million people in the UK. That is why it is vital to have a healthy and transparent ticket market, yet with increasing frequency, secondary ticketing resellers are causing dramatically inflated prices for the fans, and taking away revenue from performers. That has to stop.
I have consistently been a champion of the free market and I do not have a problem with artists or sports teams charging whatever they wish for their services. That is their prerogative, and they should be allowed to set the prices of their tickets or, if they choose, to sell them through secondary ticketing or auction websites. However, as the online marketplace has become quicker and easier to use, a large number of unsavoury and illegal practices have sprung up surrounding ticket reselling websites. That is why I, along with colleagues from both sides of the House, founded the all-party group on ticket abuse. We conducted a review and the results were published recently, as we have heard, with new clauses recommended as a result.
One key aspect of an honest and transparent ticket purchasing process is the intention of the buyer at the point of purchase. No one would begrudge a Rolling Stones fan who has become ill the day before the show the opportunity to sell their ticket to someone else. However, an increasing number of people are buying tickets with absolutely no intention of going to the event. Instead, those career touts buy tickets solely with the intention of denying them to real fans, whom they can squeeze for profit by reselling their tickets to a “sold out” event.
That situation is not limited to fans who simply waited too long to buy tickets. With internet ticket selling becoming more streamlined, touts are able to use sophisticated computer systems to buy large volumes of tickets automatically mere seconds or minutes after they go online. That can often mean that it is practically impossible for genuine fans to get access to the event, forcing them to rely on an artificially created secondary market, and depriving content creators of revenue for their event. That is unacceptable.
On this issue I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who raised some points earlier, because we would all suffer, including the artists. Just because an artist has received the full value for a concert that is sold out does not mean that they—or another artist—would not suffer elsewhere. For example, suppose someone has a budget of £500 a year for going to venues. They might think, “I’ll go to 10 concerts in that year and buy some merchandising and other products while I am there”, but if they then spend £200, £300 or even £500 on one concert, they will not go to the other nine. No wonder there is underselling in other concerts because people do not necessarily have the money, and we all lose out as a result.
Mike Weatherley
My hon. Friend is shaking his head, but he must understand that my point is right. I would, of course, prefer no legislation on the subject and to rely on industry-led solutions, as we heard earlier. A potential solution to touting, which has been adopted by some venues already, is to use credit card verification. However, touts often generate such large profits from many events that that method is ineffective. There are also additional problems of crowd control and so on. If hon. Members who disagree with that point had bothered to come to the all-party group when we took evidence, they would have heard from promoters who have tried those other methods that such things do not work, and they would not try them again for all sorts of reasons.
The Metropolitan police published a comprehensive report on fraudulent ticketing and the dangers it posed to the Olympics; it specifically cites ticket fraud, touting and ticket reselling websites as areas of concern. Among several issues, the Met noted that websites with servers based overseas were causing serious problems by advertising fraudulent tickets, and making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to track the offenders or shut down illegal sites. The report stressed—as do I—the need for an open and transparent system for ticket reselling, with clear and appropriate regulations.
Transparency is key to protecting not just content creators but ticket buyers from dubious and misleading transactions. Again, I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley because I never thought there would be a connection between halal meat and secondary ticketing. I was keen to intervene on him but he would not allow me to. All through his speech, however, he made the point that clear labelling and the consumer being aware of what they were buying was fundamental. He said—I wrote it down—that it is a fundamental right that consumers know what they are buying. That is exactly what the new clauses are saying, no more and no less. For instance, it is common in the entertainment industries for all or part of the fee for professionals involved in an event to be paid in tickets. The venue might be paid in tickets to a corporate box and a promoter or manager may be given some as part of their fee. That is done with the tacit understanding that recipients of such tickets will subsequently be able to sell them for significantly more than their face value. It is, of course, the prerogative of the content creators if they wish to do this, but it should be done transparently.
Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, have suggested that trying to regulate ticket touting is an interference in the natural free market. However to say this is to misunderstand—and be wrong about—one of the key principles of the free market, which is the ability for the market to respond to demand by increasing supply. In the case of sports matches or live music, there is no way to increase the supply. There are only so many games in the season and bands can only play so many dates. That is why it is so important for the content creators to be in control of how their tickets are sold. It does not in any way infringe their right to charge however much they want for the tickets, as long as it is part of a transparent and well regulated system that works in the best interests of fans and performers.
New clauses 18 to 21 are intended to assist that transparency. None of the clauses would restrict the secondary markets, but they would become more accountable. In particular, people who had been sold an invalid ticket would be compensated more than just the ticket price to reflect the true cost of attending. New clause 20 would restrict the cost to twice the price paid for the ticket, which might not be the full cost to those attending, but would at least give some incentive to those selling to get the ticket price right, without being an open cheque book.
We have come a long way since I first supported the private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) a few years ago. Then, there was little support for measures to protect consumers from the worst aspects of ticket touting. Now, I am pleased to say that, with increased knowledge and understanding, there is increased agreement on both sides of the House that something needs to be done. The small measures suggested in new clauses 18 to 21 are a step in the right direction, and I trust that the Minister will address at least some of the issues when she responds later.
Mr Speaker
Order. By my reckoning, eight hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. Colleagues will be aware that the moment of interruption is 7 o’clock. They will be able to do the arithmetic for themselves, but if everyone speaks for approximately five minutes and no longer, it should be possible to accommodate everybody.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) who spoke so well in support of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I also wish to associate myself with the clear arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in respect of other amendments in this group.
I wish to speak to new clause 15, in my name and that of the hon. Members for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) and for Batley and Spen (Mike Wood). I raised this issue in Committee, although new clause 15 is not simply a retread of the new clause I tabled there about product recalls, especially of electrical items, and safety. It is a new and improved new clause, with added provisions based on the very fine contribution by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen in an Adjournment debate on 24 March.
When my original new clause was debated in Committee, the hon. Member for East Lothian had to speak to it, as I was in the United States as part of a delegation on the Colombian peace process. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for speaking so well on the new clause in Committee.
The purpose of the new clause is to try to make good the deficiencies in the product recall system. I am one of those people, probably like many other Members, who laboured under the assumption that there are very clear schemes, strict regimes and tightly managed fine systems for product recalls, particularly for products that can threaten the life and health of families and the fabric of properties. We read about products catching fire and being recalled—washing machines, cookers and so on—but the Electrical Safety Council report “Safer Products, Better Business” shows that most product recalls succeed in recalling only 20% of products, with some recalling only 10%. That means there are a lot of unsafe products in people’s homes, threatening lives and property.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House with inimitable eloquence as always, but I think I can confidently predict that he is reaching his peroration.
Mark Durkan
The other point the Government make is that this will be the subject of a European directive in a couple of years’ time. I would only make the point that we should not have to wait for a European directive, and that it would be better if a meaningful European directive were transposed through existing legislation. New clause 15 would provide exactly those powers and that legislation.
Mrs Main
I would like to speak to new clauses 13 and 22, and make a small reference to new clauses 18 to 21.
New clause 13 was explained so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as being a matter of consumer choice. I have a huge degree of sympathy with that, but I will explain why I cannot support him today. We should all know exactly what we are eating. We should have a good deal of information about how animals have lived and died. I have major concerns that Europe does not have the same high standards of animal welfare that we have in this country, yet we import meat from those animals that have been raised with living standards we do not find acceptable and have outlawed, such as farrowing pens for pigs.
Briefing from the Eurogroup for Animals, published in 2011, gives some interesting information about European standards of animal husbandry and, indeed, animal slaughter—much of the meat involved enters our own food chain—and makes it clear that many of us should be very concerned about those issues. That organisation opposes the slaughter of all animals without their being stunned beforehand. The briefing states:
“In 2010, the European Commission requested from Member States official data regarding numbers of animals ritually slaughtered within their territory.”
Unfortunately, there was a real lack of data. According to the briefing,
“most of the countries do not have reliable figures available as no traceability exists to differentiate between animals”
when it comes to how they have been slaughtered. Of course, I am concerned about how they have lived as well. There is also a significant over-slaughtering of animals for halal and kosher meat within the food chain to allow for the amount of demand that might arise in countries that import such meat, which means that there is no way of showing what happens to animals that have been killed in that way and where they end up in the food chain.
This is indeed a labelling issue, but I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley that, according to some of the information that has been gleaned through the examination of people who do not wish animals to be killed without being stunned, it is almost impossible to trace the meat involved, and that without Europe-wide traceability, his proposal will be totally unenforceable. I appreciate that many consumers would like to know how the animals were treated, where and in what conditions they were raised, the extent of the confinement in which they were placed, and how they were slaughtered. While I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments—I, too, believe that consumers should know exactly what they are purchasing—I therefore cannot support his new clause.
Let me now say something about the tenancy issues that have been raised. I quote my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley a great deal, because he talks a lot of good sense, and his heart is often in the right place. However, I believe that if we put all the onus on landlords when it comes to any fees associated with the checking of tenants—they often have to be checked now because of the rules on residency, which govern whether they have the right to rent in this country—those fees will go into the chain, and other ways will be found to put up rents. I cannot believe that the Labour party wants that to happen.
A small letting agency in St Albans, which contacted me about the Labour party’s proposal, is deeply unhappy about it. Given that the agency provides a service enabling people to go into its office, choose from the properties that are advertised, be shown round and so on, why should a fee not be incurred for the benefit that the potential tenant enjoys? The landlord may enjoy a different benefit in the form of the checking of the tenants; the benefits are not always exactly the same.
I suggest that the Government should be extremely cautious before accepting any blandishments from the Labour party, which constantly tries to impose all the cost on businesses. We, as consumers, also want a degree of protection.
Mrs Main
I am afraid that this is a very short debate.
Part of those fees go towards ensuring that there is a market for people who want a good choice of tenanted properties that they can go and look at.
Let me now add my few words to the extensive debate about tickets. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) made a very good point about touts who would potentially sell tickets back. That is a flaw, but I have a huge amount of sympathy with those who have bought a ticket that cannot be used for some reason. I do not see how it can be wrong to sell that ticket on, as I might sell on anything else that I might have purchased. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley made the valid point that if a major company selling tickets en bloc wants to try to stop the practice, it should be working with the Government for that purpose.
I do not wish us to outlaw the selling on of tickets that people may have purchased quite rightfully and of which they then wish to dispose. I feel that that would creep into other areas and start applying to people who buy the latest thing from Kate Moss At Topshop, the latest pair of trainers or the latest toy, and then choose to sell it on. I think that that is a slippery slope, and I do not wish to go down it.
Mr Speaker
Order. Of course I am in colleagues’ hands, but I simply point out that anyone who speaks for longer than three minutes will knowingly be stopping another colleague contributing. I just put that in my usual gentle fashion.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to speak to new clause 22 about letting agents’ charges. When the Communities and Local Government Committee did a report on the private rented sector last year, we had more evidence and more complaints about letting agents’ charges than almost anything else. That was reflected by the OFT, which said that complaints to Consumer Direct about letting agents were almost all about fees and charges. It is not just that there is one fee up front for a tenancy agreement; there are also the charges for inventories and for credit checks, and people enter into a viewing not knowing what the ultimate charge will be. It is a charge they have to find up front as a prospective tenant, at the same time as they are trying to find the deposit, and often these are people on very low incomes.
The process gets repeated to a degree every time people renew their tenancy after six months or 12 months, and that militates against having longer term contracts. Agents see this as an incentive not to let longer term contracts because short-term contracts mean renewals and more fees for them. I have described letting agents as being a bit like football agents as they make their money out of transfers and renewals of contracts. We ought to be extremely wary of that.
Shelter said the average size of a fee to a tenant was £355. The Foxtons website gives its fees as £420 to a tenant to create a contract, £96 to renew it and £150 for an inventory check. Such charges are replicated by most letting agents.
The Committee responded that there should be absolute transparency of fees up front when a property is advertised and it must be clear what the totality of charges to tenants will be and there should be no double charging. If there is transparency, it will be harder for a letting agent to charge a tenant and a landlord for the same thing, which happens at present.
We want these changes to be put in a mandatory code of practice, but the Government have not agreed to do that. On transparency, all that has happened is the Advertising Standards Authority has given a ruling saying the fees that are compulsory should be shown up front as part of the price quoted. However, when we go on websites like that of Foxtons, we see those fees are in very small print, so, in practice, letting agents are going through the motions when it comes to the ASA ruling, but they are not sticking to the spirit of it.
We did not recommend a complete abolition of fees to tenants. What we said was that it has been done in Scotland and that we should review the Scottish experience. The Committee will come back in the autumn and look at the Scottish experience and consider whether banning charges to tenants means higher rents. If so, there is a question as to whether tenants favour paying a bit more in rent rather than having a massive fee up front. The Committee will also look at the fact that the contract is with the landlord, not the tenant. We will take further evidence on those matters in the autumn.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I wish to speak briefly to new clauses 18 to 21. I was a member of the Public Bill Committee and we had a long debate about ticket touts and the secondary ticketing market. I think there is cross-party support on this, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) and the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for the work they have done as chairs of the all-party group on ticket abuse of which I am proud to be a member. The report that has been produced is excellent and is close to my heart as Knebworth, which is in my constituency, is the largest outdoor music venue in the UK. I am therefore very keen to ensure that we eradicate ticket touting for all events. Having cross-party support to eradicate ticket touting is very welcome, and we need to push that forward.
In Committee I referred to an organisation called Twickets. It takes a photograph of the ticket in question and places it on its Twitter feed and it can then sell that ticket for the face value or less. That is the only way in which that ticket can be sold. That provides a good opportunity for someone to sell a ticket at face value or less to a third party whom they do not know.
One thing that disturbed me in Committee, and one of the reasons why I cannot add my name to new clauses 18 to 21, is that botnets are buying up huge amounts of tickets from the online retailers, and 90% of tickets in the UK are currently sold online. So one huge problem facing us is how to stop these botnets buying up the tickets. Consumer behaviour is in many ways driving the problem, because consumers are prepared to pay almost any price and so they accept the market; they pay the price and that allows ticket touts to flourish. We need to focus on how we can remove ticket touts from the UK and how we eradicate them as much as we can.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I rise to support new clause 22 which is an important first step in addressing a private rented sector into which many hundreds of thousands of people who would previously perhaps have been allocated a social housing dwelling have been forced because council houses and housing association properties are currently in short supply. Many of them have to move over and over again: often these are people on very low incomes and they are hit with punitive charges by profiteering rogue letting agents. I say that this is an important first step because it is not just about the charges associated with establishing a tenancy in the first instance.
A letting agency in Derby, Professional Properties, hits people not only with the sorts of charges we are debating, which would be covered by the new clause, but with additional spurious charges when they end their tenancy. I am dealing with one case in particular where a young woman who looked after the property in which she had been living very well was hit with an enormous charge of more than £1,000 for spurious repairs. As a result of my intervention that charge was dropped, but there has been a refusal to allow her to have her deposit back. Those are shameful tactics by letting agents who are exploiting a very vulnerable group in society, and it is incumbent on us in this place to stand up for people who are being exploited in this way.
It is important to acknowledge that the private rented sector does have a role to play, but we want a responsible private rented sector and a responsible letting agents sector. Rents in the private sector have gone through the roof, so there is ample money in this system without these additional charges being heaped on people, who, as I have said, are often on very low incomes. I strongly support new clause 22 as a very important first step to regularising the private rented sector in our country.
Andrew Percy
I want to speak primarily to new clause 22, but first let me briefly speak in support of new clause 14. I thought I was the only person who had problems with switching, believing it to be another in the long list of failures in my life, but since I got elected I have realised that there is a massive issue to address so I fully support that provision. I have some sympathy with new clause 13, as I would like to see better labelling, but I am not sure I can support it as drafted.
On new clause 22, I should declare that I do not have any buy-to-let properties—I struggled enough to qualify for one mortgage, so the idea of qualifying for a further mortgage is probably a bit of a joke. Going through the list of other Members who have relevant interests, I noted that an awful lot of them were on the Opposition Benches. I assume that no Labour Members who rent out a property do so through a letting agent that charges fees, because to do so would be to fall foul of a word we are not allowed to say in here.
With this new clause we have a campaign going on. We have student union politics at the moment whereby the Opposition pick an issue and throw it out there in the hope it gets some traction. They do not think it through; there is nothing more to it than that. This time the issue is letting agent fees. It is my belief that they have not spoken to the letting agents or to many of the tenants who have to pay the fees—if they had, they would not be proposing this measure in such a way. I want a sensible debate on this, but we do not get it. As I have said, what we have had is an orchestrated campaign in which Labour opponents, many of whom live in massive houses in particular constituencies, have been told by the Labour party centrally here in London to parrot a particular line. They do not care about it to the extent that they have ever stood up and talked about it before. My Labour opponent, who wrote to me about this, certainly never had a word to say about it before she was told to do so by Labour headquarters in London. That is what is going on here. We are not having a sensible debate about this measure, which hits some of the big cities such as London, or about repeat fees. Labour has taken this scattergun approach in the hope of trying to drum up support for the measure, but what will happen is that rents will go up, because these charges will not disappear; the tenant will have to pay them in some way.
In many houses in my constituency, particularly in Goole which is relatively poor, the landlords do not charge bonds. They say is that if they cannot charge a relatively small fee—the biggest company in my constituency, Goole Property Centre, does not charge repeat fees or fees to people who do not then get a property—they will charge bonds instead. The cost of getting into a property to begin with could double or quadruple in my constituency.
I can tell Members what some of the letting agencies use their fees for. A large number of those who are renting are foreign tenants, and the agencies try to provide somebody who speaks their language and who gives them additional support, often getting them signed up to gas and electricity. They also help out with some of the simple things, which lead to a huge number of letters in my postbag. I am talking about things like bin collections—how to follow the rules—and community cohesion problems, which occur when large numbers of foreign migrants live in homes in multiple occupation. Landlords use their letting fees to subsidise such activity, and that is what will disappear. This is an ill-thought out policy from the Labour party. Let us have a sensible debate about it. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that it was too early to make a decision, because we need to see what happens with the trial in Scotland. Unfortunately, Labour has decided not to wait, but wants to continue with a student union type approach to try to build something around the cost of living issue. It is a bit pathetic in my view, which is why I will not support this measure until we have a proper and sensible debate.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am concerned about the way in which this debate on halal and kosher has been taking place in the country and about some of the things that have been said in the Chamber. At the heart of this debate is a suggestion that somehow the halal and kosher slaughtering processes are more painful for the animal than the stunning process. Some 90% of the meat in this country is stunned, so we are talking about just 10% of meat. I am sure that Members can see behind what the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is saying. He claims that the whole country is concerned about the issue. As somebody who is virtually a vegetarian, but occasionally will eat meat, I am concerned not just about the rights of animals but about the issue of experimentation on animals, which I speak up about and campaign against. The newspaper that is going on about halal meat does not talk about experimentation on animals, which is real cruelty. We know that it just wants to have a go at one particular group of people. I want to deal with one central question, which seems to be the accepted wisdom of everyone here, and that is whether the kosher and halal method of slaughtering is more painful.
A scientific study was carried out by Professor Schultz and his colleague at Hanover university in Germany. They took one group of animals and followed the halal and kosher slaughtering process, and then took another group and followed the stunning process. They placed electrodes on the animals concerned and monitored the level of pain experienced by the animals. If anyone is squeamish here, they can place their hands over their ears. This is what they said about the halal method:
“The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision…For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep—unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out from the body…After the above-mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all…As the brain message…dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing”—
at this point, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other organisations might say that the animal is suffering, because it is convulsing, but the reason for that is not pain, but that the blood is leaving the body and the bones in the body structure are convulsing. That is not pain—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would listen.
With the stunning method, although the animal appeared to fall unconscious after the stunning, in fact the EEG graph
“showed severe pain immediately after stunning”.
Let us be realistic about stunning. It is not a nice little prick; it is done via an electric shock or sometimes, with some animals, a pistol. We are not talking about a painless death.
Yasmin Qureshi
No, I will not, because I only have a few minutes.
The third thing to notice is that the
“hearts of animals stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the”
halal meat method. No one wants to talk about the science, because the accepted wisdom goes with the prejudice that I am sorry to say certain newspapers in this country show towards certain groups without looking at the evidence.
Yasmin Qureshi
No; as I said, I am not going to give way.
I am very concerned about how animals are treated and reared and concerned that they should not be treated cruelly when they are transported. We should have a proper scientific debate about slaughtering, because the evidence is out there. Concern is perpetuated because most people do not know how the halal or kosher methods of slaughter take place. If they looked into the studies that have been done in America—I do not have the time to go into all of them—they would find that this is a proper system with the animal’s level of pain being monitored—[Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not want to hear this, but I am sorry: they are going to have to listen to me. I have the Floor, and I am not—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House must listen to the hon. Lady.
Yasmin Qureshi
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am probably saying something that a lot of people are finding a bit difficult to swallow, but it is about time that the counter-argument and the full facts were presented to the country and to Parliament. For far too long, the debate has been skewed, because certain sections of the media want to deal with just one aspect, but they are misleading people. A myth is being perpetuated that somehow kosher and halal methods, carried out as they should be, are more painful and cause more suffering to the animal, but that is incorrect. The stunning method is probably more painful, so banning things or labelling based on “humaneness” or whether animals are being treated properly is wrong. I want to say more, but I will leave it at that, because others want to speak.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I will not detain the House for long. I want to talk about new clause 13. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) would not divide the House on it, but it has highlighted yet again the extremely important issue of food labelling and consumer choice, and the work that still has to be done.
I start with a simple principle and question. Should consumers be allowed to know where their food has come from, how it has been prepared and how it has been slaughtered? For me, the answer to that simple question is yes so that consumers can make an informed choice. However, I accept that the issue is more complicated than that and more complex than this simple new clause. I am not being critical of my hon. Friend when I say that, and I completely understand why he has worded it as he has. However, although I have great sympathy with new clause 13, I cannot support it as it stands.
Jenny Willott
We have had a varied and wide-ranging debate this afternoon, so I shall do my best to cover as many of the issues that Members have raised as I can. First, however, I want to explain the Government amendments, which are designed to protect consumers from a delay in receiving a refund. We discussed the issue in Committee and although delay might arise only in a minority of cases, the Government are persuaded that the potential detriment means that this is a sensible change to make. We are ensuring that any refund must be made without undue delay and always within 14 days of the trader agreeing that the consumer is entitled to a refund. Since we discussed that in Committee my Department has been consulting business organisations and consumer groups to identify the best way to make the change without disadvantaging either consumers or businesses. I am glad that the Opposition support the change.
The Government agree that consumers should be protected from fraudulent, counterfeit and misleading ticket sales. I think that everybody in the House would agree with that. However, we also need to allow the market to operate for the benefit of consumers who would miss out on events without it. We have made new regulations that will come into force this year to empower and inform consumers. From June, traders will have to ensure that consumers have all the information they need before they buy. We published detailed guidance when the regulations were made in December 2013, but since then the Trading Standards Institute has been working on additional guidance. We have today updated our guidance on those regulations to make it clear what that means for ticket sales. That went live on our website this morning. It includes clarification that if the ticket is for a specific seat that information must be given, that the total cost, including delivery costs and other charges, must be given and that, depending on the circumstances, the face value may also need to be given.
In addition, from October of this year we are making it easier for consumers who have been misled by a trader to take their own action to get their money back and, if appropriate, to get damages as well. Armed with that information and access to redress, consumers will be empowered to make use of the market for their benefit and hopefully not fall victim to fraudulent, counterfeit or misleading ticket sales. There are also rules in place to protect consumers, and when a marketplace is aware of illegitimate activity on its site it might be in breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
As for new clause 12, when there are concerns about the secondary ticketing market the first port of call should be for the industry to source a solution. Some of the larger event organisers, as has already been mentioned, already have refund procedures in place and we welcome that. However others, including smaller players, have chosen not to, for very good commercial reasons in many cases.
The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) highlighted the importance of industry-led action, and we agree with that. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and a number of other Members mentioned the rugby world cup in 2015, and that is a great example of industry-led action. The organisers’ 10-point plan lists many of the actions suggested by the hon. Member for Shipley, including the release of tickets in batches and the late issue of tickets.
All that is being industry-led. I hope that what I have said has reassured members of the all-party group that we share the concerns that they have highlighted and that we have looked carefully at the best way to take on board the group’s recommendations to try to protect consumers. I hope that they are reassured by what I have explained about the information on the website and in the guidance.
On halal meat—a completely different subject—we want people to have the information that they need to make informed choices about the food that they buy. Many retailers or restaurants and fast food outlets already voluntarily provide information on whether meat is halal or kosher. As we have seen from the debate today, this is a complex and sensitive area. There is no single clear definition of halal meat. The majority of halal meat produced in this country comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter, whereas kosher meat all comes from unstunned animals. That is just part of what consumers want to know, as we have heard in the debate today. We already have powers under the Food Safety Act 1990 to make domestic regulations to introduce a requirement to label with the method of slaughter. However, we do not consider at this stage that regulation is the best approach. Primarily, food businesses should provide consumers with the information that they want and need. If there is to be compulsory labelling, we believe that this would best be done at a European level. That would be best for consumers and also ensure that we do not put our food industry at a competitive disadvantage.
Jenny Willott
I will not give way, I am afraid. I have no time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said that there was widespread customer demand for labelling of the kind that has been suggested. An EU study is currently being undertaken on precisely that question, so we are waiting with interest the publication of the study so that we have full information on what consumers want. We will review all our options at that point.
We had a good debate about product safety in Committee and we have discussed it recently in the Chamber. There is already legislation on product safety recalls, which places strict duties on producers and distributors to ensure the safety of products. These regulations also provide trading standards with comprehensive powers to enforce them. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, we need to improve the effectiveness of product recalls. The traceability of products after sale is a real challenge, as he said, but I do not believe that introducing new reporting requirements or a new overarching agency is the right approach. The vast majority of businesses take the safety of their customers very seriously and I believe that the best approach is therefore for us to continue to work with representatives from industry, consumer groups and enforcement agencies to ensure that the system is as effective as possible.
The issue of lettings has also excited people this afternoon. Most letting agents offer a good service. A blanket ban on fees, as new clause 22 proposes, cannot therefore be the answer to tackle a minority of irresponsible agents. In addition, banning fees will not make it cheaper for tenants, because tenants will just end up paying through higher rents rather than upfront fees. The hon. Member for Walthamstow highlighted the example of Scotland. My understanding is that in the first quarter after the change was introduced rents rose significantly in Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and in the year to March rents rose by more in Scotland than in England and in Wales. In fact, the rate of increase in rents was double that in Wales. So it is not quite as simple a picture as the hon. Lady highlighted.
We are already changing the law to require all letting and managing agents to belong to an approved redress scheme, which will give tenants an effective way to make complaints. Last month the Housing Minister approved three redress schemes that all letting and property management agents will be required to join later this year. This will ensure that tenants and leaseholders have a straightforward way of holding their agents to account. The three compulsory schemes, which are the property ombudsman, ombudsman services: property and the property redress scheme, will offer independent investigation of complaints about hidden fees or poor service. Where a complaint is upheld, tenants and leaseholders could get compensation.
We are going further. Today, in a move that ensures a fair deal for landlords and tenants, I am pleased to announce that we will be amending the Bill to require letting agents to publish full details of the fees that they charge. Currently the Advertising Standards Authority requires letting agents only to list charges to the tenant up front in their advertisements. Those letting agents who are found to have imposed hidden charges face little more than being named and shamed on the authority’s website. We want to go further to require all letting agents to publish a full tariff of their fees both on their website and prominently in their offices. Anyone who does not comply with those new rules will face a fine that is a much stricter penalty than currently exists. While every business remains free to set its own fees it has to be transparent, so competition will ensure that letting agents will have to justify those fees to tenants.
Today’s plans add to the work that the Government have already done to offer stronger protections for landlords and tenants in the private rented sector while avoiding excessive regulation, which would force up rents and reduce choice. We intend to review the requirement for greater transparency after 12 months of operation to confirm that it is delivering the expected benefits. If not, the Government will consider whether the proposals need to go further.
We have discussed micro-businesses in an earlier debate, so I will briefly state that we do not support extending the consumer protections in the Bill to smaller businesses. The provisions in the Bill have been designed for consumers, and we cannot and should not assume that they can be applied as successfully to small businesses as they can to consumers. As the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills acknowledged, all business groups that responded to the Government’s 2008 consultation preferred to retain the clarity of the current distinction between business and consumer.
Finally, on Government amendment 14 and Opposition amendment 5, I am happy to change the process from a requirement for the negative to the affirmative procedure, and have tabled a Government amendment to that effect. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow will not press her amendment.
Philip Davies
I did not hear the Minister make any remarks about new clause 14, which appeared to have cross-party support. Will the Government support it too?
Jenny Willott
Given the time restrictions, I shall say that we support the intention behind the new clause but not its wording, as there are a number of problems with it. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman after the debate the points that he has made to see if there is a way forward. With those remarks, I hope that hon. Members are happy that I have covered all the issues that were raised in the debate.
Stella Creasy
A number of issues have been raised. I am conscious of the time so I shall be brief and discuss the two new clauses that we want to push to a vote because we are not satisfied with what the Government have said. First, on new clause 22, which deals with letting fees, the Government should realise that it is not a small minority of letting agents charging fees. Indeed, good landlords do not want to lose tenants who cannot afford those fees.
The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) was disrespectful about the idea that tweeting in the Chamber was a good idea. Let me tell her that in the past hour we have had an example of a fee of £1,300 to change the names of two tenants on a tenancy agreement. Those are the sorts of fees that we are talking about. Shelter disputes the evidence that the Minister gave about there being no impact on rent inflation in Scotland since the measure was introduced. Members have to make a decision about whether they are on the side of the consumer or on the side of business. We are firmly of the view that we need to be on the side of the consumer in this instance in changing the way in which the rental market works. Rental fees are anti-competitive, and there is a conflict between who acts for the landlord and who acts for the agent. We need to change that, so we want to push new clause 22 to a vote.
We also want to push new clause 16 to a vote, because it is clear that Members across the House want to see action on ticket touting. New clause 16 puts into practice the amendments that the Government proposed on consumer information and consumer evidence. The Minister discussed the rugby world cup, but it is clear that tickets are already being sold on secondary sites, so the measures that she discussed have not had an impact. We need to make progress on that too.
We are happy to take advice on amendments on businesses, and we are happy to accept the Minister’s assurances about refunds. We are seeking more Government U-turns, but on letting agent fees and ticket touting it is time for action, and that is exactly what the Opposition seek in the amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Goods to be as described: meat products
‘(1) All products containing halal and kosher meat shall be labelled as such at the point of sale by retail and food outlets.
(2) A food outlet is anywhere where food is served to the public.’.—(Philip Davies.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order—that means that every Member in the Chamber, whether in front of or behind the Chair, should be silent.
All-party Parliamentary Groups
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That–
(1) this House approves the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2013-14, HC 357, on All-Party Parliamentary Groups, and the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups contained in Annex 1 of that Report.
(2) the Resolution of the House of 17 December 1985, as amended on 10 March 1989, 29 July 1998, 7 February 2011 and 12 March 2012, relating to the registration of interests be further amended with effect from the beginning of the next Parliament by:
(a) leaving out paragraphs 3 and 4; and
(b) inserting a new paragraph 3:
“Chairs of All-Party Parliamentary Groups shall be responsible for registering the matters specified in the rules for such groups and for the group’s adherence to the Guide to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups”; and
(3) the Committee on Standards shall have power to update the Guide to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups from time to time and to make such minor changes to the Rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups as are necessary to ensure the effective operation of the Register of APPGs and the regulatory regime applying to such groups.
I am delighted that the House is able to debate the report, which sprang out of Mr Speaker’s recognition that all-party group regulation needed to be reconsidered to ensure that it remained appropriate. As I recall, both you in a previous life, Madame Deputy Speaker, and I were members of the working group that was set up. It was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), who unfortunately is unable to be with us tonight, although he would have liked to have been here. The Select Committee on Standards built on the proposals of the Speaker’s working group but we also conducted our own investigation. The lay members of the Committee played a full part in this investigation and their presence meant that we had the power for the first time to see ourselves as others see us. I can assure the House that lay members may be friends but in private they have no hesitation in being critical friends. In my view, their ability to be critical friends is precisely what makes them worth having on the Committee. I am sure that view is shared by all members of the Committee. As a result of their involvement we know that the Committee’s proposals command the support of people who have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the way this place works and the wider issues involved in all-party group regulation.
As part of our work, the Committee joined with the Administration Committee to get some hard facts about the way in which all-party parliamentary groups operate. We surveyed all APPGs to find out the range of support they received and the frequency of their meetings, and besides that quantitative evidence we took qualitative evidence from colleagues from external organisations involved with APPGs, from those who reported on them and from critics as well.
I do not think we should be embarrassed about APPGs. Indeed, I would be surprised if more than a handful of us were not involved in APPG work. APPGs enable groups of Members to inform themselves about policy. They allow us to work across party lines and to work across both Houses. They allow us to educate ourselves. Today’s all-party Whip shows that Members have opportunities to meet with UK ambassadors from many different countries, hear about the launch of the Green Investment Bank’s new scheme to help local authorities install energy-efficient street lighting, look at the links between mental health and problem debt, or hear about immigration detention in the UK from Shami Chakrabarti or social work from Martin Narey—that is only some of the meetings that are taking place today under the all-party group system. There is a great opportunity for Members of this House—for legislators—to hear from experienced people on many issues.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to the various APPGs with which I am closely involved, and other declarations of interest. One APPG today met a group that included over 60 members of the freight industry. Members of the House were able to hear from them, and were informed by a response from Baroness Kramer. That knowledge would not be able to be received in any other way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Interventions must be brief.
Kevin Barron
My hon. Friend’s point is well put. I am no expert on freight but if I wanted to be and I was involved in making legislation in this House, that is the type of opportunity that is available to share experience from outside.
APPGs come in all shapes and sizes, from a few people effectively acting as a friendship group for a particular country to groups such as the parliamentary and scientific committee, which provides a way for parliamentarians and the science community to communicate with one another, often through major events. APPGs provide a forum for parliamentarians to press for change. They also provide a forum in which outside organisations working on the same topic can communicate with one another.
It is true that APPGs provide a forum in which outsiders can promote policy to Members of Parliament. I think it is reasonable for us to listen to those who want to lobby us, whether they are charities, businesses or knowledgeable individuals. Their ideas will only be taken up if we think they are good. This is a Parliament—a place where people talk. We talk to one another in formal proceedings, but, even more, we talk to people outside this place, both formally and informally. We need to do that to do our job, so there should be as few barriers as possible to people talking to MPs. Freedom of association is one of the rights protected by the European convention on human rights. Nobody wants to stop MPs talking to each other or to those outside this place, but we could not stop, even if we were mad enough to want to try. Any regulatory regime has to be proportionate, or all-party groups’ activities will simply be driven underground.
It is fair to say that there is a suspicion about all-party groups and at least a danger that they could be misused, so we need a regime that reduces the chance of such misuse. Before I go into that, I just wish to say that I hope last week’s events in this place made it clear that existing rules already prohibit Members from using all-party groups for personal gain and that the Committee on Standards will have no hesitation in condemning those who seek to misuse them.
Our proposals in this report are based on five principles: ensuring parliamentary control of all-party groups; ensuring responsibility and accountability; financial transparency; improved understanding; and proportionality. On parliamentary control, it is already a requirement that groups should meet to elect officers at Westminster on a sitting day and that the meetings and annual general meetings should be advertised on the all-party notice. We also propose an increase in the quorum; that only parliamentarians should have voting rights in all-party groups; and that all members—MPs and peers—should be entitled to vote in an all-party group.
Our proposals on responsibility and accountability are designed to ensure that groups are regulated from this House and it is clear who is responsible for compliance. Rather than having a contact officer, all-party groups should have a chair from the Commons, who will have responsibility for ensuring that the group complies with the rules. All-party group notices should give a parliamentary e-mail contact—we are working on that at the moment. We recognise that external support can be invaluable, but if these groups are really of interest to Members surely we should be willing to provide some resource to support them. Complaints about all-party groups could be and will be investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
Members are already responsible for registering benefits they each receive as a result of APPG membership, such as visits or hospitality, and that will remain. We also recommend that APPGs that receive £12,500 per year will need to submit annual income and expenditure statements. Benefits in kind will need to be described and have an approximate financial value ascribed to them. We believe that is a sensible thing to do, but that does not take individual members of all-party groups away from their individual responsibilities to register such matters.
On improving understanding, we want there to be clear APPG branding, accompanied by clearer rules about the informal work Members undertake which is not linked to APPGs. The House has formal Committees and, in APPGs, a mechanism for MPs and peers to work together outside that formal framework. Members are entirely free to work outside those frameworks, but we should not be attaching the logo of Parliament to groups that do not comply with the regulatory requirements. Some offers were made during the debate and with the working group on getting harsher on this, but we genuinely believe that such an approach would drive people away from the formal all-party group structure into an ad hoc system, which would have little, if any, influence. We want to make sure that that is avoided. There also needs to be far better information on APPGs on the parliamentary website. I am pleased to say that the all-party Whip is now at least available on the intranet.
On proportionality, as well as making sure that the financial transparency regime is effective without being onerous, we propose to end the requirement for there to be 20 qualifying members before a group can be set up. In practice, it has meant that colleagues have signed up to groups on the principle that they might some day be interested, or because if they wished to found a group themselves their colleagues would be more likely to support them. I have had an interest in several all-party groups for most of my time in this place, so I know that that is the case. Members trade names. They may say, “Well, you can put me down for that one, as long as you don’t expect me to do any work in that area.” We feel that that behaviour should now end, and there is detailed recommendation about how to do that.
It was impossible to distinguish between groups that attracted a great deal of parliamentary interest and those that were, shall we say, more specialist, and we feel that there should be more transparency in that area. Let me end with a quote from our report. It says:
“No one wants a Parliament where Members have no interaction with wider society, take no steps to inform themselves about matters of public concern or are simply lobby fodder for whichever party they represent. APPGs perform a useful function in allowing Members to set the agenda and in allowing wider groups to put their case to interested parliamentarians within a framework which ensures transparency and control by Parliament.”
I hope that the House will agree to our proposals, which are intended to produce such a framework.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
On behalf of the Government, I support the motion before us in the name of the Chair of the Committee on Standards. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) has set out very clearly the conclusions of his Committee’s report and the effect of the motion before the House. All-party parliamentary groups have a distinct and important role to play in the work of Parliament. They provide a recognised forum in which Members of both Houses can meet together and with individuals from outside Parliament to share information and exchange ideas on issues of mutual interest. This is a healthy process. Indeed, the free flow of ideas and information between the lawmakers and citizens is an essential part of any properly functioning democracy.
There is a huge range of APPGs, the origins and purposes of which may range from a shared interest in a particular country or activity to a campaign for a good cause or policy objective. There is no problem with that. What is important—I would say essential—is that in respect of all such groups, there is transparency as to their purpose, membership and support, particularly any financial support, as well as accountability for their actions. That is what I hope will be achieved through the changes we are approving today.
I fully support the intention of the new resolution to make it clear that each chair of an APPG will be responsible and accountable for their group’s adherence to the rules governing all-party parliamentary groups. Those rules must be taken seriously and complied with scrupulously. The fact that significant breaches will be subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and subsequent consideration by the Standards Committee should provide an effective deterrent.
I am also happy to endorse the proposal to give the Committee on Standards the job of updating the guide to the rules on APPGs and making minor changes to the rules from time to time as the need arises without having to bring such changes before the House for approval.
The House can have confidence in the Committee to entrust it with this function. Indeed such detailed changes are much better done in Committee than on the Floor of the House. The House should be grateful to the Standards Committee for its work on revising the rules and the guide to the rules on APPGs. This will serve to increase the confidence of the public in how Parliament conducts itself and the confidence of Members that their engagement with APPGs is not only valuable in itself but beyond reproach. I commend the motion to the House.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
The Opposition recognise the importance of this issue, and the debate is particularly timely given the recent scandal involving Mr Patrick Mercer.
I want to begin by thanking the Standards Committee for conducting a thorough investigation into the running of all-party parliamentary groups. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Kevin Barron) for his continued chairmanship of the Committee and the leadership that he has shown on the issue. I also thank all those Members who provided submissions, and those organisations and individuals who gave evidence to the Committee. The inquiry was, I think, an historic first in that I am not aware of a previous occasion on which a journalist—Mr Mark D'Arcy of the BBC—was asked to give evidence as an expert witness.
It is worth noting the origins of the inquiry. As the Committee report explains in its introduction, there has been disquiet about the increasing number of APPGs in recent years and, in particular, questions about whether they were susceptible to undue external influence. Mr Speaker’s working group on APPGs was established earlier in this Parliament to consider such issues. From the group’s comprehensive study, it was right that the decision was taken for the Standards and Privileges Committee, as it was then constituted, to look at the rules on registration.
In parallel, the Administration Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), has at the Commission’s request examined the impact of APPGs on the running of Parliament. The Administration Committee’s key recommendations, such as the scrapping of the APPG passes, reform of the security and room-booking process and the requirement to have a parliamentary contact included in the all-party group Whip, have already been implemented. The House is grateful to Mr Speaker and to the whole Commission for their leadership and the decisive action taken, in particular in the light of the events that transpired last summer.
Returning to the Standards Committee report before us, Labour concurs with all the proposed changes. The recommendations to scrap associate groups and to end non-parliamentarians having a vote in the running of parliamentary groups are correct. The raising of quorums for meetings and increasing the number of officers, while at the same time ending the requirement to have 20 signed-up parliamentarians, is sensible. As the Committee explained, the 20-member rule has led to a number of cases in which MPs and peers who play no active role in an APPG are dragooned into helping out colleagues to meet the targets, as well as obscuring those who are actually playing a key role in the running of an APPG.
Transparency of activities is vital. To that end, we also support the proposed threshold for donations or gifts in kind of greater than £500. The Committee’s logic in recommending the same threshold as for party donations seems to be an appropriate figure. We agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley said, that requiring those groups that receive more than £12,500 a year to publish income and expenditure statements will go some way towards improving public confidence in APPGs. In short, where the Committee has recommended changes, Labour fully endorses the recommendations and urges the House to support them.
The Patrick Mercer case, however, has again highlighted the unease felt by many both inside and outside the House of Commons about the role that lobbyists and third-party organisations may play in the running of APPGs. In the interest of transparency, it might be appropriate at this point to highlight the fact that the charity for which my wife works provides the secretariat to a cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament. Cross-party groups are the equivalent of APPGs. Nevertheless, I recognise the role that lobbyists, charities and big business may play in providing secretariat and administrative support, which, for some people, has been and is still a contentious issue.
I note that the Standards Committee does not propose any alterations to the APPG rules on external support. As the Committee acknowledged, however, its report was produced without reference to the Patrick Mercer case. That scandal makes uncomfortable reading for all of us who believe that Parliament should be striving to restore public confidence in political participation. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards found that Mr Mercer sought to use an APPG as a vehicle for his commercial interests and that the pseudo-foundation that he proposed as the secretariat would be the engine of that vehicle.
Campaigners for greater transparency have long questioned why some organisations provide the secretariats to APPGs. As the Committee acknowledged:
“It would be naive to think that all the organisations supporting APPGs do so…for altruistic reasons”.
Indeed, the Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), warned only last week in the Chamber that
“all-party groups…are the next big scandal waiting to happen”—[Official Report, 8 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 305.]
It is therefore sensible that the question whether it is acceptable for the secretariat to be provided externally be kept under review. Will the Leader of the House say, therefore, whether the Government share our view on that issue? Will he say whether the Government believe that a fresh, independent look at the issue should be considered in the next Session? Will he clarify whether the Government are relaxed about the question of lobbyists or big business playing a key role in the heart of the parliamentary system?
In conclusion, we believe that the report has much to commend it. It makes a range of important recommendations and also endorses the decisions of the Commission and the Administration Committee in a number of areas of the running of the House of Commons. We thank the Standards Committee for its work and endorse the motion.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest as the chairman of three APPGs—those on the police, skin and, unsurprisingly, dentistry. I occasionally attend others as well. Following the last attack, if you like, subtle though it was, I must say that I am always amused by the mythology surrounding APPGs. According to the media, in particular, they have mystical power over Ministers. Many, including those who should know better—I include some journalists—relate them to Select Committees. Journalists, when media effect is needed, always describe Select Committees as powerful and APPGs as influential. I am afraid that my response to that is “perhaps”.
The fear propounded by some in the media is that lobbyists will manipulate APPGs. In fact, one of the national papers floated that in an article today. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) mentioned Mark D’Arcy, a parliamentary BBC journalist who knows, because he cruises the halls of the House of Commons and, I think, of the House of Lords, exactly how the systems work. The Standards Committee asked him various questions—his answers are in the report—and he said:
“Someone said to me during recent events that if someone was going around touting the idea that All-Party Groups have genuine influence on Government policy, they should be done for fraud”.
He then said that he agreed, but up to a point.
As a former Minister, I was always made very aware of the background of anyone I was officially meeting, whether they were a lobbyist, from an all-party group, or an individual who wished to influence policy. Every Minister will be well briefed on anyone trying to pursue a position or point—whether they are an individual, or from a group, a firm or an APPG. Their points might or might not be accepted by the policy makers, but it is right that APPGs can be one source of information. In fact, the skin APPG recently published a report for the accepted benefit of Department of Health Ministers following a gathering together of interested people, groups, trade representatives and so on, as clearly set out in the report. The APPG assembled the evidence in its report, which is absolutely transparent about its sources. Health Ministers will make of that what they will, but whatever they do it is a useful assembly of a particular subject of interest to that Department.
It is transparency that counts, and that the APPGs are driven and controlled by MPs or peers as appropriate. The Standards Committee was clear on the usefulness of most APPGs as a means of discussion and even the enlightenment of MPs and peers, but I might also say that sometimes the enlightenment comes from MPs and Lords to those attending. As many in the House will be aware, the outside perception of House procedures and timetables is often very wrong. Those who attend sittings from outside this place often find them very educational. I remember the chairman of an important chamber of commerce, whom I will not name, asking for some legal change involving primary legislation, and his absolute failure to understand that even if I, as a Minister, agreed, which I did not, it could not be enacted after having made progress through both Houses in the next week.
In essence, the changes desired in the report are fairly minor and reflect the Committee’s desire not to over-regulate. The sceptical media and others need to realise that APPGs with transparency and light regulation are preferable to ad hoc groups operating without transparency, undercover, which would be the result if APPGs were limited in number or were over-regulated. This is a carefully considered report with relatively minimal changes that essentially extends transparency.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I start by declaring that for a good long time—a decade or so—I was chair of the Africa all-party parliamentary group. Good and effective all-party groups—they are a mixed bag; some are extremely good and effective, others less so—can have a real influence on public policy. For instance, since the last election, when the Government introduced their defence and security review, the Africa all-party group put in a report that urged the Ministry of Defence to consider the possible security risks emanating from Africa. This was some time before the Libya campaign, but it led to the establishment within the MOD of a unit to look at the African dimension of security.
To give just one other example, under the previous Government, the group produced a report about British involvement in corruption in Africa. It led to the appointment by the Government of an anti-corruption tsar. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) held that job for a time, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) after the general election. It also led the Government, after a couple of false starts, to introduce a Bribery Bill, which went through with all-party support in the wash-up just before the last general election.
So all-party groups can have a purpose, but they are a mixed bag. Some are truly independent and use that independent voice to great effect. Others are less than entirely independent; they are a front for particular interests or lobbies, sometimes a pretty transparent front—which is a better option—and sometimes a not particularly transparent front. I agree with the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that there is a scandal to come about the way in which outside interests lobby in the House of Commons. I do not believe that the Lobbying Bill has addressed the problem properly, and I believe that the rotten tail of the all-party group spectrum provides inappropriate opportunities for outside interests to lobby in this place.
So I welcome the recommendations in the report. They move in the right direction, but to my mind they do not yet move far enough. For example, it suggests that each group should maintain a list of those Members of the two Houses who are active in their affairs, and that it should be available either because it is published or on request. It would be better if such lists were published, presumably on the all-party group’s website or the website of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It helps transparency if the public understand which Members have a particular interest in an all-party group.
I want to raise just one matter that could be advanced under the recommendations in the report. They would permit the Commissioner for Standards to issue guidance or codes of practice. Guidance and stricter regulation is required in relation to the election of officers of all-party groups. Most all-party groups meet as a small band, and elections take place very well in an informal way, with no statutory returning officer or heavy procedures. I would not want to over-regulate the affairs of a majority of all-party groups, which work, because they have limited resources, in a fairly informal way. However, we have had some recent examples of highly contested elections. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) in her place. When there are highly partisan and contested elections for officerships of APPGs, the cross-party consensus that exists in most of these groups is undermined. Such a consensus enables groups to have the leverage and purchase on policy that they do.
I deeply regret the fact that there was a party political campaign to take over the chairmanship of the all-party group on human trafficking, which led to two ballots, the first of which resulted in a tie. Messages were sent through party channels—not through the Whips Office, I think—through an informal system of whipping on both sides of the House. Occasionally, there are political differences in all-party groups, which fail if they fracture along political lines. If a self-denying ordinance among Members does not prevent those groups from becoming, in a small number of cases, highly politicised, some form of regulation is necessary.
I spoke to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who campaigned to take over the all-party group on human trafficking, earlier today to warn him that I would mention his name in this debate. He told me that his campaign was entirely party political, which I find disturbing. It has happened on two or three other occasions. The chair of the all-party China group was ousted, I believe, as the result of a political campaign.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend referred to the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery and the election, with a record turnout, which I won and which—he is right—was fought on party grounds. I want to reassure the House that since then, the group has been able to involve Members from all parties working equally enthusiastically on an absolutely broad basis. His comments should not lead anyone to think that that all-party group operates in any way in a sectarian manner, because it does not.
Hugh Bayley
I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the opportunity to put that on the record. It is something that I observe from the work the group does.
I should declare a personal interest: I lost the chair of the Africa all-party group because a band of people not from my political party, by a more considerable margin than is normal for our meetings, were organised—perhaps that is the way to put it—to turn up and vote for someone else who, in fact, leads the group extremely well. None of that caucus, which was organised on party grounds to come in and depose someone and elect someone else, had ever been to a meeting of the Africa all-party group, nor has any of them been to a meeting since. I would make the same statement in relation to the Africa group as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough made in relation to the all-party group on human trafficking. It runs extremely well under new leadership and I am content with it.
I believe, however, that the problem of highly contested elections reached a pinnacle of bad form in the recent election in March of this year for the all-party group on Russia. I was aware for several days beforehand that there was going to be an election. I was under the clear impression that the candidate from my party should be supported—a lot of messages went out trying to encourage people to turn up at that meeting and, equally, messages were sent out to members of another party to support an alternative candidate, who won the contest. One might just say that that is what happens in politics, but the conduct of that election would not pass muster if it was a public election. It would not be deemed remotely acceptable if it was a trade union ballot for industrial action. I turned up at the appropriate time in Committee Room 5, which seats 20 or 30 people at a pinch. There were 80 or 100 people in that room, packed shoulder to shoulder, and as many people outside in the corridor. The group’s officers, one from each party, had pre-printed ballot papers with the names of two candidates, although nominations were not sought until the meeting. As luck would have it, only two candidates were nominated, so the ballot papers were in order.
The two all-party group officers then started distributing the ballot papers to a sea of hands, pushing and shoving. There were no checks whatsoever on who took the papers—whether they were Members of either House or whether they took more than one paper. Indeed, I heard someone joking that they would have to go round with ballot papers again, although I saw no evidence of that. I heard people out in the corridors shouting, “Come here. It’s Room 5. Get in there!”, and asking Members to support their candidate.
I think that is a move in the wrong direction. I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to say that I felt it would be possible to introduce some form of procedure in such cases to improve the transparency and democracy of the elections—I copied the letter to the Chair of the Standards Committee. There is a rule that permits any Member of either House to join any all-party group, and that is extremely important, because we do not want all-party groups to be closed shops for particular groups of people.
Thomas Docherty
I know that my hon. Friend is moving rapidly to a conclusion and will not want to spend more time on this issue than he has to, but is he aware that, as the Standards Committee states in its report, the rule on 20 members is not about who is or is not a member of an APPG? Every Member of the two Houses is a member of an APPG and has equal voting rights.
Hugh Bayley
I have a couple more things to say, but I will say them quickly.
I believe that we need a system that enables elections to take place from those who have played an active role in a group. That is why publishing a list of members of a group would be a good thing. It should be perfectly in order for someone to put their name on the list up to, say, 24 hours before the election takes place. But the idea that people can turn up to a meeting by the dozen, take ballot papers that are not numbered and not have their names recorded when voting allows a misuse of procedure that should not be permitted.
I would warmly welcome the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looking at this issue and, while ensuring that all-party groups remain open to all Members, allowing a better means of regulating such elections where there is a great deal of interest in them.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I obviously lead a sheltered life, because in my 17 years in this place I have never witnessed, or been involved in, shenanigans of the sort that have just been described, which underline the importance of and need for the motion before us this evening. All-party groups, if used in the right way and in the right spirit, are an asset to this House, and indeed to the other place.
My experience of membership of all-party groups over the years has been one of colleagues with a shared interest coming together to promote something that is not normally done within the parliamentary channels. Last week I was elected chair of the all-party group for the island of St Helena. In the past the group has done a lot of good work in promoting the island’s interests. For example, the airport that we all campaigned for is currently under construction. I am also chair of the all-party first aid group, which brings together Members from both sides of both Houses. Its sole interest is promoting first aid. For 15 years I was secretary of the all-party scout group. Those all-party groups exist only to promote organisations in this place and benefit them because they have a wider interest in society.
In view of what the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) said, let us go with this motion, because we do not want the sort of behaviour he described.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
As a member of the Committee, I commend the report to the House. I declare my chairmanship of the autism all-party group and co-chairmanship of the European Union all-party group.
The report is an important step forward in several respects, but most notably in how we seek properly to differentiate the labelling and logos used on reports by registered all-party groups—that is, the crowned portcullis with the appropriate title of the group—and the appearance of documents such as the Select Committee report that I have in my hand. It is vital that all-party groups do not seek to publish documents that look like, or could be mistaken for, reports by Committees of this House. We have to do everything we can to make sure that the media do not continue to fall into the trap of making no distinction between the reports of all-party groups and those of Select Committees. That recommendation by our Committee is particularly important.
Kevin Barron
I am very pleased that the report has the support of the House. I have heard the wider debate on the issues. Paragraph (3) of the motion gives the Committee licence to make minor changes without necessarily coming back to the Floor of the House, but we will use that in a sensible and proper manner, if at all.
Question put and agreed to.
Intelligence and Security Committee
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Let me make it clear that I have no objections to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) joining the Intelligence and Security Committee. I think we would all agree that she is a person with quite an independent mind, and certainly a strong personality, and no doubt she will make a useful contribution to the Committee. This is nothing personal, and I am sure she did not expect there to be any criticism along those lines.
However, I am far from satisfied that the method of being nominated in the name of the Prime Minister is the best way for a Member to join the ISC. It is going back to former times. The Leader of the House looks rather puzzled, but he knows full well that a system existed in the previous Parliament whereby names appeared on the Order Paper and we would agree to them or otherwise, as the case may be. I take the view that the ISC should be subject to elections. Fortunately, that is not only my view. In paragraph 158 on page 62 of the Home Affairs Committee report on counter-terrorism, which was published last week, it says:
“we recommend that the Commons membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee should be elected like other select committees and that the Chair, who should always be a member of the Commons, ought to be subject to election of the whole House, as is the case for Select Committees.”
It is interesting to note that there has been a great deal of competition as to who should be the Conservative Chair of the Defence Committee. We receive a good deal of correspondence on that subject. While that post is subject to a great deal of competition, and we will decide on it accordingly in the democratic way on Wednesday, for membership of the ISC there is no election whatsoever. A name is put before us and we either accept or reject it.
I simply want to say that whenever an opportunity such as this arises, I will make my views known. This is not an acceptable way to proceed—the Home Affairs Committee agrees—and membership of the ISC should be subject to election. I would hope that at least the Deputy Leader of the House—a Liberal Democrat—would also take that view. Having made my position clear, I do not oppose the motion, but I will use every future opportunity to make my views known.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick). He is a man of great seniority in this House and we always, rightly, listen very carefully to what he has to say. There is one—and only one—reason why his proposal runs into difficulties. The simple point is that this particular Committee, unlike any other, has access to highly classified information up to the range of top secret, strap-2 level and occasionally higher.
Some people believe that this country should have no secrets at all and that if we had no secrets, there would be no classified information and no case for treating the membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee differently from that of the Defence Committee.
Mr Winnick
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s kind remarks, but does he accept that, in the 1980s, before the ISC was formed—I was on the Standing Committee that led to its formation—it was very difficult to get the matter raised at all when I tried to initiate debates on the Security Service? I am in favour of such a Committee and I am certainly in favour of the security services—even more so in the face of acute terrorism—but I want accountability, and I think that is the main difference between the hon. Gentleman and me.
Dr Lewis
I hope to show that the difference between us is as small as possible. I was certainly not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was not in favour of this country having security and intelligence services or, indeed, highly classified secrets. It was as a result of the work that he and his colleagues did back then that it became possible to open up the intelligence and security agencies to much greater scrutiny. Their activities can now be examined and debated considerably. To a large extent, that happens in the open—in the public arena of Parliament—but when it cannot be done in the open, it can now, thank goodness, be done in the closed and secure environment of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I will move on quickly, because I do not wish to detain the House for longer than is necessary. Some people think that we should have some secrets but that there is not a single hon. Member of this House who could not be trusted to know them. If that is one’s view, there would not be any argument against the membership of the ISC being elected just like the membership of any other Committee. However, the membership of this House reflects society in all its varied shades, phases, types and categories. The fact is that I do not think there are many people who would say that, out of 650 Members, there are not at least some who are not quite, shall we say, discreet or tight-lipped enough to share in the most sensitive secrets of the security and intelligence agencies. If one makes that concession, one has to admit that this Committee, if it is going to see such material, has to have some sort of screening process and cannot simply be subject to the ordinary process of election, unless we are content that any single elected Member of this House can, by definition, be trusted not to do something foolish if given access to highly sensitive information.
Mr Winnick
We all know, of course, of the hon. Gentleman’s own history of pretending to be someone else—namely a Labour supporter—in order to infiltrate the Labour party. I would not suggest that, because of his action then, he should be debarred from membership of the ISC.
Dr Lewis
I am delighted to know that. I have to admit to the hon. Gentleman that one of the reasons I put myself forward for a place on the Committee was to test the water and see if any of my past nefarious activities, as he would regard them, would result in my being black-balled. I came to the conclusion that I was appointed for one of two reasons: either it was thought that I was so discreet—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I fully appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but however exceedingly interesting they may be, they do not entirely relate to the very narrow motion before us.
Dr Lewis
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I may, I will just conclude that sentence by saying that I came to the conclusion that it was regarded as a suitable Committee on which to put a troublemaker who could not talk about what the Committee was discussing.
In conclusion, most people think that where highly classified material is concerned—material covered by the Official Secrets Act—some people are better suited than others to be allowed to see it. It is not acceptable or compatible with that for the whole House simply to vote for any Member to be a member of the Committee, because the Committee would not be allowed to continue to receive such material. However, I hold out a smidgeon of hope for the hon. Member for Walsall North in that a case could be made on the basis of the argument that once all the members have been appointed, the objection would fall in relation to the Chairman. Once all the people who are regarded as appropriate to see highly classified information are known, I cannot see why the whole House could not then decide which of those cleared Members should be the Chairman, but perhaps that is for another occasion.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Indeed, I agree with everything he said, in so far as it related to the motion.
To be perfectly honest, I am slightly confused about why my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) chose to speak in this debate, although I do not doubt his right to do so. There can be only two reasons for someone to object to the motion: either they object to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—but he said that he does not object to her—or, alternatively, they object to the motion itself and the procedure on which it is based. As the House will know, the motion relates to section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. I suspect that he spoke against that provision when the Bill went through the House and was defeated. If he objects to the provision, I find it confusing that he said he would not object in any meaningful way. I am not quite sure what the point of his speech was. Ultimately, he will not object to her being put on the Committee, but at the same time he will not object to the procedure, so I am at a bit of a loss to explain why he chose to detain the House tonight, but perhaps he can explain.
Mr Winnick
I am puzzled that my right hon. Friend is puzzled. No, I have no personal or political objections to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart)—why should I?—but as I thought I had made perfectly clear, I am opposed to a system in which, in the name of the Prime Minister, a Member’s name is simply put before us and we say yea or nay. Let me make it quite clear to my right hon. Friend that I am in favour of democracy and of people going on Committees subject to election, and that includes the ISC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made his point—in my judgment, he has made it clearly—and he does not have to repeat it.
Mr Howarth
I think that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but it did not take us any further. I do not intend to address it any more, because it did not take his argument any further. Having said that, I conclude by congratulating him on the one overriding quality that I have observed him to possess over the years: he is consistent; it is just that he is consistently wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No remarks have been made.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 11 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Copyright
That the draft Copyright and Rights in Performances (Disability) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 March, be approved.
That the draft Copyright (Public Administration) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 March, be approved.
That the draft Copyright and Rights in Performances (Research, Education, Libraries and Archives) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 27 March, be approved.
Aggregates Levy
That the draft Revenue and Customs (Amendment of Appeal Provisions for Out of Time Reviews) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March, be approved.
Licences and Licensing
That the draft Licensing Act 2003 (FIFA World Cup Licensing Hours) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 1 April, be approved.
Energy
That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 9 April, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Church of England (miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
That the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure (HC 1273), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Sir Tony Baldry.)
The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Greg Hands)
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Church of England (Miscellaneous provisions) Measure, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the measure, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the measure.
Question agreed to.
Business of the HOuse
Hull Official Receiver’s Office
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak about the proposed closure of the official receiver’s office in Hull, and I thank the Minister for meeting me and other Hull MPs to discuss this issue on 6 May—I note that she has had busy day in the Chamber today. The proposal is to close the Hull office and relocate more than 40 staff to Leeds. The claim is that that will produce a saving of about £289,000 over five years, which rather pales by comparison with the bill of £353,000 for tea and biscuits in the Minister’s Department in 2012.
I accept that nationally the work of the Insolvency Service has declined considerably across the country over the last few years, and we are seeing fewer cases coming forward overall. However, the argument is not about reducing the number of staff employed in the service, but about concentrating work in certain locations, and that is where I want to focus my contribution this evening.
The decision to close the office in Hull undermines the efforts of all those who are working to create a more prosperous city. Hull needs an additional 7,000 jobs to get to the national level of employment, and while we have had welcome news about Siemens coming to the city—something won by local effort—we have been hit hard by the recession and three years of flatlining.
We know that the closure will take around £1 million out of the local economy, at a time when Hull has hardly any Government jobs. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is supposed to be committed to economic regeneration of the regions, but how does this policy help with that aim? The Government are also supposed to have a policy of distributing Government and civil service jobs around the country. What consideration was given to the relative number of civil service jobs in Hull and Leeds when making this decision?
Hull has exceptionally few Government jobs: 10 Departments, including the Minister’s own Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, have no staff in Hull. Departments that do have staff in Hull, like the Ministry of Justice, tend to have front-line delivery staff. As I said, the plan is to move the Insolvency Service jobs to Leeds, where there are already more than 9,000 civil service jobs and where office rents are far more expensive. I have observed a similar pattern repeated across the country: the insolvency office in Stoke, where rents are very cheap, is being closed and moved to Manchester where rents are higher. Previous Governments have had a clear policy of distributing Government jobs around the country—do this Government still have that policy?
I heard the Deputy Prime Minister this morning waxing lyrical on the Floor of the House saying:
“I am always open, as are the Government, to proposals on moving further parts of the public sector from Whitehall and London to other parts of the country. Sheffield”—
where his constituency is—
“has benefited enormously from that, with the Department for Work and Pensions and the business bank being established there.”
It seems to me that we have a Government who are certainly not looking at spreading Government jobs fairly across the regions and are in fact now taking them away from East Yorkshire.
It appears that civil servants based in London have decided that it is a good idea to close offices in Hull. I imagine them in their offices in Whitehall with a map of the UK, and, almost as happened in the second world war, moving around people they think can be distributed around the country, with no thought for the effect on communities.
The business case says that this closure programme is being driven by the Cabinet Office’s Government property unit, which aims to reduce the number of properties in the central civil estate. It seems that there is a desire to centralise jobs in a few places, with little consideration given to the wider economic consequences or even to the fact that in some cities rents will be much higher than in other parts of the country. What similar cost savings have been made by the Minister’s Department in London? The plans being put forward for Hull are about saving £289,000 over five years, which is a drop in the ocean compared with the cost of renting or occupying office space in central London. How many posts have been moved out of London since 2010, and at what saving to the taxpayer? How much office space has been freed up at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in London and, in particular, in the head office on Victoria street?
Another of my concerns is about the consequences for the economy of the closure of the Insolvency Service for the Humber region. Through the establishment of the local enterprise partnership, the Humber is seeking to forge a path as a separate economic region with a distinct identity. The Insolvency Service has developed specialist knowledge of the region which, if these plans go ahead, will be subsumed by the wider Yorkshire region based in Leeds. Hull staff have more than 600 years of collective insolvency experience. Last year, that saved the economy more than £2.5 million, as they disqualified 20 directors. There is a particular value to having local knowledge about what is going on in an area. As we know, unfortunately many people the Insolvency Service deals with are repeat offenders. Of 17 local official receiver offices, Hull is joint fifth in terms of the number of disqualification reports—that is quite high.
An example of the good work that has been done is the fact that local knowledge in the Hull office stopped German bankruptcy tourism in the Hull county court. The limited liability partnership provided false addresses to German residents but that has been wound up thanks to the local knowledge and work of the Hull office. Without local knowledge of the places referred to, it is unlikely that that fraud would have been stopped, so will the Minister give me her view of the assessment undertaken by the Insolvency Service of moving direct regional centres to larger autonomous units in terms of the detection of fraud?
Following our meeting on 6 May, the Minister promised that she would provide the business case to me and to other Hull MPs. However, the information contained in the business case that I have been given is limited solely to the Hull, Leeds and Sheffield offices. It does not give a comparison between Hull and other offices of a similar size that have not been closed.
The savings identified are mainly saved office costs offset by £125,000 in train fares for three years for staff who relocate to Leeds. That is good news for First TransPennine Express, the local train operator, and it may be that it can use that money to provide some much needed investment on the Hull-Leeds line instead of sending trains south. There is, however, much that is missing from the costing in the limited business plan. The first thing is redundancy costs.
The staff in the Hull office are exceptionally experienced: collectively, they have more than 600 years of experience. Having spent their lives working in Hull, however, many do not want to travel to Leeds and all have been offered redundancy payments. From union sources, I understand that redundancy costs could be as high as £1 million. Where is that allocated in the business plan? The saving of £289,000 over five years is relatively small, yet redundancies could cost £1 million. I appreciate that that is provided for by a different budget directly funded by the Treasury, but it all boils down to taxpayers' money, and the Government should be acting in a more joined-up way when looking at the closure costs of this office.
On training new staff, it is accepted by the Insolvency Service that the staff in the Hull office are required to meet the necessary case load not just of work from Hull but other areas of the country. The business case blithely presumes that all Hull staff will move to Leeds. As I said, I think there are questions about the numbers of staff who will choose to take redundancy. It takes three years to train a level 3 examiner before qualifying, but the costs of recruiting and training staff do not seem to be included in the business plan.
Bizarrely, in the very brief consideration given in the business case for moving the Leeds office, which as I said has 9,000 civil servants, to Hull, which has very few civil servants based in the city, the presumption that 30 staff would not move across is included, along with associated costs of recruiting, training and the short-term loss of capacity. Will the Minister explain why she has presumed that Leeds staff will not move to Hull, but all Hull staff will move to Leeds?
A further concern is about the way the consultation with the trade unions has been conducted. The Minister has consistently maintained that the Insolvency Service has been attempting to work with the Hull office to find a way of keeping the office open. In answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Minister wrote:
“The trade unions were made aware on 25 February 2014 that the future of the Hull office was being considered, and were invited to provide any views they wished.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 93W.]
This was not, however, the impression given to the trade union, Prospect. Prospect told me
“that the Service would be running exit schemes and then closing offices. There was never discussion on whether an office closure was justifiable as we had not been provided with the financial justification and despite requests by the Trade Unions, the Service would not release the business cases for the closures.”
Consultation with the trade unions only commenced when the decision to close the Hull office was made on the basis of a statutory 90-day consultation. Will the Minister outline exactly when the trade unions were involved, and what opportunities they were given to inform the closure plans? The Hull office was told on 25 February that the future of the office was under review and that the review would take six months. In the meantime, it looked at ways of reducing its costs, including preliminary discussions on new premises that would reduce the rent by approximately £90,000 per annum. Obviously, office rent is one of the key issues in this whole business. Two weeks later, however, the service informed the Hull office that it would be closed, and showed no willingness to work with the office in seeking alternatives to closure. It is clear from the business case that no consideration was given to cost reductions within the current structures, as identified by the team working in Hull.
The savings from the closure of the Hull office appear to me to be uncertain, but the £1 million cost per year to Hull’s local economy would be all too certain. We know that, owing to decisions made in Whitehall by the coalition Government, Hull city council suffered one of the heaviest funding cuts in the United Kingdom—despite being the UK’s 10th most deprived area—and there are worries about not just Hull’s insolvency office but its land registry office, whose future is currently under review.
The coalition frequently claims to support the idea of “rebalancing the economy”, north and south. As I said earlier, one way of doing that would be moving Government Departments and agency civil servants’ jobs to places such as Hull rather than taking them away. This debate may be about saving only 40-odd jobs in Hull, but every job matters in a town where so many people chase each job vacancy and so many jobs are low paid and low skilled.
I think that, provided that the service is needed and can be run efficiently, we should fight to save every job in Hull that is under threat, and there is a strong case for keeping the official receiver’s office open. That would be consistent with what the Government say their policy is—but too often what they say and what they do are different things, especially when it comes to the treatment of northern cities such as Hull. It seems to me that devolved jobs are going the same way as Lord Heseltine’s devolved funding, and that, yet again, Hull is not getting a fair deal from this Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
I trust that we will not detain you for too much longer, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for securing the debate. I recognise the interest that she has shown in the relocation of the Insolvency Service’s office in Hull. As she said, we met last week to discuss the issue, along with other Hull Members, and I entirely understand why she is concerned about the potential impact on her constituents and is representing their views this evening.
Let me put the position in context. The Insolvency Service is an executive agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It has about 1,800 employees, who operate from locations throughout the country. They deal with a wide range of insolvency matters, such as administering bankruptcies and liquidations —which includes realising assets and distributing them to creditors—dealing with corporate malpractice and misconduct by investigating companies and individuals abusing the system, and managing payments to employees who are made redundant. The administering of insolvencies is funded by fees charged against the assets of insolvents. It is obviously very important to the creditors involved for the costs to be kept as low as possible, while still providing for an effective and fair service.
As the hon. Lady acknowledged, the past five years have seen a sharp drop in the number of insolvencies handled by official receivers’ offices, from about 80,000 cases in 2009 to nearer 25,000 today. That is largely because of a sharp fall in the number of debtor petition bankruptcy cases following the winding back of high levels of lending. To date, it has led to a reduction of about a third in the staff of the Insolvency Service, which has been achieved through a programme of voluntary exits.
As for the question of where offices need to be, for the purposes of official receiver work in particular, the Insolvency Service needs to be able to interview insolvents within a reasonable distance of their homes. We would therefore usually choose city or town centre locations close to transport hubs. The Insolvency Service reviewed its network of local offices in the context of customer demand and the reduced number of employees, and estimated that the estate was about a third too large. It therefore embarked on a programme of estate rationalisation, which also accords with the Government’s wider agenda of minimising the costs of their own estate.
The hon. Lady asked about the estate in London and the south-east. In the past two years the Insolvency Service has been looking at its estate across the country, and in London it has relocated to cheaper buildings in surplus Government estate in both London and Croydon. It decided to close its Watford and St Albans offices as well. It has therefore made such decisions across the UK, including in London and the south-east; it has not targeted other areas.
Individual offices need to be of sufficient size to be sustainable both as a management unit and to provide development opportunities for staff, as well as to be able to offer the necessary flexibility as workloads change. The skills needed for the different areas of work in the Insolvency Service are often similar, so in the last few years several hundred staff transferred from working on bankruptcies to investigation work as the number of cases dropped. This type of work is especially located in the larger metropolitan areas.
As a result of the review, five relocations and five closures took place in 2013-14 and a further 10 closures will take place over the coming financial year. The Insolvency Service has worked closely with the trade unions throughout this process. All employees in the affected offices have been offered the opportunity to relocate to another office or take voluntary exit terms. The Insolvency Service offers excess fares to staff for a three-year period after a move. It also discusses flexible working arrangements to try and find ways to make a move possible for employees.
The Insolvency Service is proud of its customer service, recently coming second out of 53 Government Departments and agencies, with customer satisfaction levels of 96%, which is extremely high. Around 250 face-to-face interviews arise from cases in the Hull office. That is not a large number in the context of the total number of bankruptcy interviews across the country, but in order to maintain high levels of customer service, interview facilities will be set up in other Government buildings in Hull, at minimal cost and with flexible arrangements, to be available for meetings. Replacing an office with an interview facility makes no difference from the point of view of customer experience.
Turning to the specific concerns with respect to the Insolvency Service in Hull, there are 43 permanent employees in the Hull office and the prime purpose of the office is to carry out the duties of the official receiver. Case numbers in the area served by the Hull office have seen an even greater decline than the fall in caseload nationally, with a drop in workload of 79% since 2009, which is a huge drop. Staffing levels in Hull, however, have only fallen by 43%, so there is a mismatch there.
The office was kept busy over the last two years by taking cases in from other offices. The Insolvency Service prefers each official receiver’s office to deal with the cases that arise within its area. As the hon. Lady said, that local knowledge is important. Also, with the general declining workload there is less surplus work to be transferred between offices. As a result, the Hull office is increasingly difficult to sustain from an operational perspective.
The hon. Lady mentioned the number of company director disqualifications achieved in Hull. The total number of disqualifications in 2013-14 was 27, and that was a great result by the staff in Hull and reflects very well upon their commitment and expertise. To put the figure in context, there were 1,273 company director disqualifications in 2013-14. There is significant value in disqualifications, but the disqualification work carried out by Hull will not be lost, but will be transferred to other locations, including Leeds, so disqualifications will continue.
On 27 March the Insolvency Service announced that its office in Hull would close, with its work and employees being relocated to Leeds in November 2014. This decision will both help the service reduce the number of offices and also improve long-term resilience in the face of reduced case numbers. Consolidating in Leeds allows the Insolvency Service to use its work force more flexibly, and in the longer term to offer a wider range of career opportunities to staff.
Diana Johnson
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s remarks, but the coalition Government said that they wanted to rebalance the economy and ensure that all the regions benefited. Taking away the limited number of Government jobs in Hull, an area that is blighted by terrible unemployment, flies in the face of what the Deputy Prime Minister said just this morning in the House.
Jenny Willott
We recognise that rebalancing the economy geographically is important, and I will come on to some of the work that the Government are doing in that area. We are not talking here about taking work out of the north of England and centralising it in London: we are talking about ensuring that the estate of the Insolvency Service is sensibly spread across the country and that the offices are where the work is. That is an important part of having an effective and efficient operation.
I appreciate that the decision to close the office is not what Hull employees want and I know that the Insolvency Service board did not take the decision lightly. I am aware that the board fully considered the option of moving to cheaper Government property in Hull, as well as closing its Leeds office and moving those operations to Hull. The business case put forward did not just include accommodation costs: it also looked at other benefits, such as efficiency savings stemming from combining teams, the ability to be flexible in how the Insolvency Service deploys its employees and the greater potential for personal development provided by moving between different roles in a larger office.
The business case calculated that a move from Leeds to Hull would have a net present cost of £535,000 over five years, against a net present value saving of £289,000 for a move from Hull to Leeds. Costs would have been higher for a move from Leeds to Hull because the lease on the Leeds building runs until 2018, whereas the Hull lease only runs until 2016. That is a significant difference.
Diana Johnson
I am interested to hear about the leases, and we discussed that issue when we met last week. Have there been any discussions or consideration—it was not in the business plan that I saw—of whether the office space in Leeds could be sub-let? Rent is much more expensive in Leeds than it is in Hull.
Jenny Willott
At the meeting last week we also pointed out that it is not physically possible to fit all the employees from the Leeds office into the Hull office, so we would need to find a new office in Hull and bear all the costs of refurbishing that. That option was looked at in detail, but it simply was not a financially viable alternative.
The business case took into account that not all the staff would wish to move from Hull to Leeds, although the hon. Lady said that it did not. The estimate was that about half would move and half would take voluntary redundancy. The costs associated with that were built into the business case for both scenarios. The Insolvency Service board considered that the business case for moving from Hull to Leeds was persuasive. Those employees who wish to relocate will have a job in the Leeds office, and the Insolvency Service will pay excess fares for three years. The Insolvency Service has been having one-to-one meetings with its employees as well as keeping closely in touch with their representatives about the implications of the relocation and the impact on individuals. For those who do not want to move office, the option of voluntary redundancy is available, but that is clearly the last resort for most people.
The hon. Lady also raised concerns about employment in the Hull area. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting the Hull area. This issue was raised in Deputy Prime Minister’s questions earlier, and it is a real commitment on the part of the Government. The Humber local enterprise partnership predicts that the city deal for Hull and Humber will deliver more than 4,000 jobs in offshore wind-related industries; at least 1,100 unemployed young people supported into work; 3,400 construction jobs; an expected £460 million of private sector development on the Humber; engagement with more than 3,000 businesses; and the provision of extensive support to 500 businesses, creating approximately 400 jobs. Significant effort and work are therefore going into the area, and the Government are committed to ensuring that we invest in other regions of the UK, and that we are not focused centrally on London and the south-east.
In conclusion, I appreciate that this is a very difficult time for the Insolvency Service and its employees. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured that the Insolvency Service is aware of the issues that she has raised, that her questions have been considered and that the service is supporting affected employees during the transition period.
The Insolvency Service wants to maintain and improve its already high levels of service delivery. It is making its services more efficient to improve returns to creditors. I appreciate that this is a challenging time for staff, but I congratulate them on maintaining high levels of performance throughout a very difficult programme of change. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the proposal has been well thought through, that the alternatives have been considered, and that staff and trade unions have been involved and consulted throughout.
Question put and agreed to.
North Corner Quay and Landing Stage, Devonport
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Political and Human Rights (African Great Lakes)
(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I am pleased that we are having this debate on the political and human rights situation in the African great lakes region. First, I want to say a big thank you to the all-party group on the African great lakes region, not just for its preparatory work for today’s debate, but for its work over a lot of years to draw attention to the situation facing people throughout the African great lakes. At one point it was the largest all-party group in the House. I do not know whether it still is, but it has always had a substantial membership.
My constituency includes a considerable diaspora community, mainly from the Democratic Republic of Congo, but there are also people who have sought asylum here from Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. I hear harrowing stories from them of the life they have left behind. Obviously I welcome them into my community, as well as the contribution they make to our society and the work they do in this country. The numbers of people seeking asylum is an issue and is testament to the problems that they are trying to escape from back at home.
I will discuss the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda; there is also obviously a relationship with the neighbouring countries of Kenya, Angola and Tanzania. We have to set this debate in its historical context, and to do that we have to think for a moment of the tragic history of the whole region, from the arrival of the first Europeans to the tragedy of the slave trade and all that went with that, and then the colonial occupation of the region, particularly by the Congo Free State in the case of the DRC, but also by Belgium, Britain and France. We must also consider the incredible wealth in minerals, rubber, timber and other natural resources that has been dragged out of the region and made an awful lot of people and an awful lot of companies all over the world very rich indeed.
Levels of brutality in the colonial world are almost unsurpassed by what happened in what is now the DRC. We should recall that the European powers sat around a table in Berlin in 1884 and calmly carved up the whole region with straight lines on the map to represent areas of European influence and control. King Leopold was given Congo personally. It was not even given to the Belgian state—that did not happen until some time later, in 1908. The huge personal wealth he gained and his obsession with dragging it out of that place is the stuff of legend. I urge everyone to read Adam Hochschild’s “King Leopold’s Ghost”, a salutary book that explains exactly the brutality associated with that time. Some heroic people stood up against it. One was E.D. Morel, a shipping clerk in Liverpool, who worked with others who were opposed to what was going on in the Congo and helped to expose it. Later, he became a Member of this House and I think he was the first Labour Foreign Minister, in the 1920s.
After the first world war, which we are commemorating this year, the victorious powers at Versailles changed a few names as German colonies became French or Belgian ones; nevertheless colonies they still were, and they were still administered. The independence movement in Africa took off in 1945 with the Pan African Congress held in Manchester. Independence was achieved first in Ghana and then in many other countries.
In the case of the Congo, independence came rapidly in 1960-61, when the Belgians basically threw in the towel, gave up and left very quickly. Patrice Lumumba became its first Prime Minister. He lasted only a very short time but is still a legendary figure, as he attempted to unite the country and make the change from colonial rule. The battle for control of the rest of the Congo after his death killed many people and resulted once again in a scramble for mineral wealth and the abuse of power and of human rights there. Tragically, that has gone on ever since, with extraordinary levels of human rights abuses and of death. I will come back to that in a moment.
As for neighbouring countries, Rwanda, as we debated last week in the House, went through the horrors of the genocide as the Tutsi and Hutu groups set about each other. Anyone who has visited the memorials in Kigali will realise the sheer scale and horror of that genocide. I have been to Rwanda a number of times, and have visited all the other countries in the region. Talking to schoolchildren in Rwanda about what they have been through, one realises that horror, and wonders what more could have been done to prevent it and can still be done to defend and protect human rights and democracy, which are the best defence against the excesses of those who seek to abuse human rights.
It is not just an issue for the DRC and Rwanda. In Uganda there has been horrific abuse of human rights on many occasions, particularly during Idi Amin’s reign. That abuse unfortunately still continues there, particularly in respect of gay people—I will come back to that matter in a moment. In Burundi, there is a similar story of the tragic loss of so much life.
I will speak on the DRC first, then move on to the other countries quickly to give colleagues time to speak. In the DRC the situation is really quite appalling. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs confirms that
“conflict in the DRC has resulted in a total of 2.9 million internally displaced people currently living in camps or with host families in the DRC, as well as extensive suffering through human rights abuses committed by armed groups, the DRC armed forces…and police. Over 60% of the total figure came from just two regions of eastern DRC: North and South Kivu. The persistence of a complex mosaic of violent conflicts has caused widespread death and displacement”.
It goes on to describe the numbers of refugees and the problems that they face.
I have visited refugee camps in Goma, and it is a frightening and depressing experience. On one occasion, along with the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), I met a group of hundreds of women, all of whom had suffered rape and violence, and were all victims of that war. Nevertheless, they were trying to build on the strength of women together to oppose the use of rape as a weapon of war. I visited camps where mainly women and children were living, often in quite limited conditions. Now, I do not blame the UN, which was doing its best to provide food and shelter. Nevertheless, the situation was odd. This was a skilled group of people, all of whom were quite capable of growing enough food to feed themselves and their families in what is the most fertile place in the world, but who were being fed on rice and maize imported from the USA and were not allowed to grow any food in the camp because the UN did not want them to take up permanent residence there. That is one of many issues we have to face.
Behind that issue, of course, is the one with which I started—the mineral wealth that has come out of the Congo. There is clear evidence that mineral companies make a great deal of money out of the DRC’s minerals. Some of those, such as coltan and diamonds, find their way through Rwanda, and make a lot of people very rich. There is no wealth among the poorest people living on top of the world’s greatest mineral resources in one of the world’s most prolific forests. There is something deeply tragic and appalling about such poverty alongside such potential wealth. It is as though the tragedy of the 19th century has gone on for evermore.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend may be coming to this point, but does what he said about the mining industry not illustrate the absolute importance of transparency in the extractive industries, something that needs direct action by western Governments, including our own?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I absolutely agree. The DRC has signed up to the extractive industries agreement, but it is clear to me that the effectiveness of that agreement is strictly limited and we need something much tougher. Indeed, we must ask questions of those mineral companies based in this country and Switzerland who import a lot of this stuff and are clearly making a lot of money out of that poverty.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does my hon. Friend note that the Catholic episcopal conference in Congo said that one of the best things that the international community could do is host a proper international conference on the extractive industries, asserting land and labour rights and addressing the false pretensions of those paramilitary groups who present themselves as somehow protecting those rights?
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased that my hon. Friend raised that because I had an interesting meeting last night with a group of representatives, including Bishop Ambongo, Bishop Murekezi, Bishop Kambanda, Denise Malueki, Father Santedi and Consolate Baranyizigiye from Burundi. They represent the Church in the region and made a number of good demands, or hoped-for results, one of which is to bring together the Churches throughout the region. The second was, in the long term, to look for peace in the region with greater involvement of the international community in the UN in both respecting international accords and conventions and working to create a climate of confidence and co-operation at all levels in the Administration. They are on a visit to this country and will address a meeting upstairs in the House later today. They are very welcome, as are their efforts, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention
I want to draw attention to two other issues in respect of the Congo. The first is the need to understand the relationship with Rwanda, which is a relatively powerful and efficient country compared with the lack of governance in much of the DRC. Yet there is clear evidence of vast resources flowing into the conflict in the eastern DRC and an imbalance between the relative power and structure of the Congolese army compared with those of the rebels and the high level of suspicion of Rwandan involvement, which is hotly denied by the Rwandan Government but is an issue that we must address in relation to Rwanda because that conflict has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people through the consequences of that war.
There is also a renewed threat from and thirst for minerals in the region. The World Wide Fund for Nature sent an interesting briefing to us describing the problems facing the Virunga national park, which was the first national park to be established in Africa in 1925. It has extraordinary landscapes, high levels of biodiversity and is a world heritage site. It is also home to the internationally important Ramsar wetlands and to the only two populations in the world of critically endangered mountain gorillas as well as many other animals. All that is under threat as people eye up the possibility of exploiting oil and other resources in that national park. The chimera of short-term wealth from mineral and oil is attractive, but the reality is that sustainability of the forest and the planet depends not on destroying national parks, but protecting them. In the long run, there will be more wealth and better resources for people living in national parks of world importance than if they are allowed to be destroyed quickly for short-term mineral wealth. I hope the Minister will indicate Government support for that.
A question for the Home Office—the Minister is from the Foreign Office, but he may be able to help with this—is that I am deeply concerned about the safety of anyone who is returned to the DRC as an unsuccessful asylum applicant in this country. There is chaos at the airport in Kinshasa and elsewhere, and a considerable threat to the families of those who have sought asylum or returned having failed to gain it. There is a serious lack of co-ordinated governance and transparent democracy in the Congo. I have been there as an election observer, and the election I observed with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and others was relatively well run compared with later elections in the DRC. There are big issues about democracy, human rights and minerals in the DRC.
I spoke about the legacy of genocide in Rwanda and the horrors that go with that. One can fully appreciate people’s anger and the need for every young person in Rwanda to understand what happens when a society completely breaks down and hundreds of thousands of people are killed with the most appalling brutality, and the feeling of immediacy. However, it is right to draw attention to the excesses of the Rwandan Government and their treatment of political dissent, the number of opponents of the President who have disappeared and the number of journalists who have been arrested or prevented from reporting what is going on in that country. There can be no justification for the abuse of human rights because of the horrors of Rwandan history. Surely the lessons of history are that the best protection against evil and excess such as happened in Nazi Germany or towards mainly the Tutsi people in Rwanda is a strong democratic society where there is freedom of expression and rights of representation.
Likewise, across the border in Burundi, there are serious problems with the new law on journalists and the way in which they are allowed to report and express what is going on. We must again raise those matters. I was part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Burundi some years ago when a number of the issues were discussed and raised.
The world is well aware of the laws that have been perpetrated in Uganda to make homosexuality a crime and the threat to those who have been caught allegedly committing acts of criminal activity—homosexual relations—who may face the death penalty as a result. Should we really have normal relations with the Ugandan Government while that is going on? Should we not be making much stronger representations and looking at the levels of human rights abuse that continue to take place in Uganda? The whole history of Uganda from Idi Amin onwards is one of terrible tragedy, with not just the anti-gay law but the behaviour of the Lord’s Resistance Army and excesses by the armed forces in trying to deal with that. Having met former child soldiers who were recruited into various militia forces in Uganda and other countries in the region, one must have some humanity and understanding.
My final point is that we are elected Members of Parliament and proud of that. Many concerns have been expressed by the IPU’s human rights committee about the treatment of Members of Parliament and other elected members who have become—how shall I put it?—unpopular with their Governments. The matter of Leonard Hitimana from Rwanda was brought to the IPU’s human rights committee. He disappeared in 2003 and it is believed that he was abducted by state forces.
There are a number of other cases, such as that of Hussein Radjabu in Burundi, who, likewise, apparently remains in jail as an elected parliamentarian. I do not believe that parliamentarians should be above the law or allowed to act with impunity, but it is important to recognise that one should not be arrested or imprisoned because of one’s political views—only for any criminal acts that may have taken place.
As we search for long-term peace in the region, we have to take up the issues of human rights and of conflict minerals and the profits that have been made from them. We should also become a force that tries to protect the environment, human rights and the populations of the area, rather than allowing the mineral companies of the world to do what the colonialists did in the 19th century, which was to destroy the pristine and beautiful environment for the short-term wealth that minerals can bring. We should look for something more sustainable in the future. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate the matter today and I look forward to the Minister’s response to my remarks.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing what is a very important debate, given the events that are likely to happen in terms of democratic processes in the area of Africa that we are discussing. I am not well known for my interest in such issues or for speaking out about them in debates, but having often met members of the Congolese community in the Tees Valley, I felt that it was my duty to make some of the points that they have made to me and to talk about related issues that I have been investigating for some time in a personal capacity.
I want to talk about three things to do with the Democratic Republic of Congo: first, the forthcoming elections in 2016; secondly, UK, EU and US investment in the DRC, in terms of conditionality; and thirdly, DRC returnees from the UK.
There have already been attempts, as there were in 2011, to revise article 220 of the constitution, which limits President Joseph Kabila’s mandate to no more than two terms of office. He has been in power since 2001, following the death of his predecessor, President Laurent Kabila. Joseph Kabila, however, was not elected to office until 2006 and he retained power in very dubious circumstances in 2011. Some—indeed, most—would argue that a tenure that has lasted since 2001 has already exhausted a two-term period of power. Be that as it may, article 220 of the DRC constitution restricts any incumbent to a maximum two terms. However, it is Kabila’s intention to overcome that obstacle in order to present his candidature again in the forthcoming election. Kabila also plans to initiate another change by proposing a government of coalition, indicating his desire to remain in place for the foreseeable future until there is the establishment of a democratically elected President.
Post the 2011 elections, there are obvious questions to ask—for example, about the house arrest, since 2011, of the opposing presidential candidate, Mr Tshisekedi. That situation needs to be taken far more seriously and questioned far more profoundly in the run-up to the 2016 elections, in terms of candidates’ freedom to campaign. It is well documented in the EU report and by others that Joseph Kabila named his supporters to the Supreme Court before the 2006 election and again before the 2011 election. The Supreme Court, or rather, the judiciary, does not work independently of the Executive—namely, Joseph Kabila.
It is also clear from the EU final report and the report by the UN human rights department, Kinshasa, that the police stand accused of human rights violations when violently repressing attempts by the civilian population to greet Etienne Tshisekedi on 26 November and before, during and after the elections. The final report by the EU mission in 2006 recommended measures that should have been put in place before the 2011 election.
Electoral fraud began long before observers arrived in the DRC. For there to be “huge irregularities”, the grounds to allow irregularities had to be in place during the registration process and during the naming of members of the Supreme Court, entailing a changing of the constitution six months prior to the election to allow one round of voting. It is clear from the EU final report that observers were not allowed to observe properly.
Recently, and more worryingly, an Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesperson said in Geneva on 6 May this year, about the judgment that 14 officers of the FARDC, the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo, were acquitted of charges of mass rape and murder in 2012, that
“the judiciary has not met the expectations of the numerous victims of rape who had fully participated in the trial…The outcome of the trial confirms shortcomings in the administration of justice in the DRC.”
He also said:
“The crimes perpetrated in Minova …were extremely serious and widespread”,
and that they were
“perpetrated in a systematic manner and with extreme violence”.
Yet on 22 March 2013 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated and promised:
“We are also working with DRC government to help consolidate peace in country through the Security sector accountability and police programme (SSAPR) managed by DFID…The UK will also use its G8 Presidency in 2013 to seek to address impunity for sexual violence in conflict and improve the response to these crimes”.
It continued:
“This includes support to security sector reform, demobilisation of armed groups and a more effective military justice sector.”
It is clear that the judiciary under Kabila is hardly reformed in any way, shape or form, and the omens appear very poor regarding any form of democratic progression.
Secondly, on UK, EU and US investment in the DRC, the Department for International Development funded the electoral registration in the DRC prior to the 2011 election, to the tune of £40 million. However, as the Secretary of State for International Development said on 5 February:
“There was mismanagement and poor planning of voting operations, which strongly affected the credibility of the national electoral commission and the results of the 2011 elections.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 5 February 2014; c. 7-8.]
That widely held and critical assessment needs thorough examination for 2016.
The United States is prepared to give the Democratic Republic of Congo $30 million in aid for stability and democracy building, but only if President Joseph Kabila agrees to step down at the end of his current term of office in 2016. Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry, on touring Africa, said that the DRC Government also need to schedule elections soon. The vote is tentatively set for 2016, although a firm date has still not been set.
In a private meeting, Senator Kerry said that he urged Kabila to follow Congo’s constitution in the upcoming elections, which would prohibit him from running for a third consecutive term as President. It is not clear whether Kabila agreed to that.
As Senator Kerry stated:
“It is important to the people to be able to know what the process is, to have confidence in that process…The sooner the process is announced, the sooner that the date is set, the sooner people have an ability to be able to participate. And we believe it ought to be done in keeping with the constitutional process of the country.”
The $30 million pledge would more than double the $12 million in assistance given to the Congo last year linked to elections and stability assistance. Some of the money could go to non-governmental organisations. Last year, the total US aid to the Congo was about $210 million.
UK support to the DRC is increasing to the tune of £250 million a year, which vastly outstrips the European development fund framework, which I think is just over €700 million over a six-year period. In short, the UK’s support to the DRC is rising massively in comparison with the EU’s and the USA’s, and with hardly any of the concerns uttered by the US State Department. The lack of conditionality in the aid programme to the DRC has been pointed out by a European Court of Auditors report released in October last year on efficiency of EU aid to the DRC.
The watchdog noted that
“the effectiveness of EU assistance for governance in the DRC is limited”,
and that
“Risks have not been adequately addressed, programme objectives tend to be overly ambitious…and policy dialogue has not been exploited to its full potential and adequately coordinated with EU Member States”
in all areas.
The report stated that the EU needs to be
“more demanding of the Congolese authorities when monitoring compliance with the conditions agreed and the commitments made”,
and that the Commission should
“(a) strengthen its use of conditionality and policy dialogue. This will involve (i) setting clear, relevant, realistic and time-bound conditions, (ii) periodically assessing compliance with the agreed conditions, and (iii) responding firmly, proportionately and in a timely manner if the DRC government shows insufficient commitment to compliance, where appropriate by suspending or terminating the programme;
(b) urge the DRC government to adopt the necessary measures for improving the functioning of the thematic working groups, and monitor the implementation of those measures;
(c) take a more active leadership role towards EU Member States to encourage coordinated policy dialogue and increase EU leverage over the DRC government.”
Those conclusions not only should be heeded by the UK Government, but must be implemented in conjunction with other EU member states and the USA.
Thirdly and finally, I want to deal with the monitoring of Congolese asylum seekers returned to the DRC and contradictions in the “Country Policy Bulletin”. The report, entitled “Unsafe Return”, documents the post-return experience of 17 Congolese men and women who were forcibly removed to the DRC from the UK between 2006 and 2011. Eleven of those were clients of Justice First, a charity that operates in the Tees Valley. The report was written to provide evidence to the Government that the DRC is not a safe country to which to return asylum seekers and to request the Government to review their decision, in the “Country of Origin Information Report” for the DRC of 2009, that it was safe for them to return. No monitoring mechanism is in place to test the UK Border Agency hypothesis that it is safe for rejected asylum seekers to be returned to the DRC. Every effort has been made, as is documented in the report, to show that all the evidence is credible.
The report’s author visited the DRC in 2011 to verify the situation of the returnees still living there. At least six returnees had fled the country, and others were found to be still living in hiding, fearful of re-arrest and unable to live with their families because of threats. Those returned consistently reported being punished in the DRC, as they had spoken out in this country about having been ill treated and the lack of human rights in the DRC, thereby betraying their country and the President.
A Congolese immigration official was interviewed in 2011. He explained that when UK immigration passed on the names of those to be removed, the files in the possession of the immigration authorities were studied. If the asylum seeker was deemed to be a problem to the state, the secret services would be alerted and the asylum seeker imprisoned or worse.
Of the number who were traced, 15 were arrested at the airport, two were arrested after leaving the airport building and transferred to Kin Mazière prison, one was arrested after leaving the British embassy in Kinshasa, three were arrested at home, one was threatened with death in Tolérance Zéro by officers and four were threatened at the airport. Congolese human rights activists and a lawyer confirmed that detainees were not given access to lawyers during their imprisonment. Returnees reported the following ill treatment in prison. One was handcuffed, blindfolded and severely beaten. Six were severely beaten. Two were given electric shock treatment. Two of the men were sexually abused. Two of the women were raped. Two of the women received slaps and blows with hands and fists.
There is much more information in the report, which I am sure the Minister is aware of; I am happy to give him a copy if he requests one. It makes me very, very angry that people who sought asylum in our country from that regime were returned. I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that I have made and that he will get back to me as soon as possible with any response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall for consideration and on giving us all an opportunity to participate in the debate and to underline further some of the things that he spoke about very clearly in his presentation. It is always good for us in the House to be aware of things that are happening elsewhere in the world and to reflect that in Westminster Hall debates, but some of the information that we have as elected representatives comes through our own constituencies. That is one reason why I want to make a contribution to the debate today.
The great lakes region has been the site of more than a decade of unrest. The outflow of more than 2 million Rwandans in the wake of the 1994 genocide was an exodus of unprecedented size and swiftness. There was a debate in Parliament last week on that issue. It was raw for the Members, because some had had the opportunity to go to Rwanda and see how that country had suffered. The failure of the international community to respond effectively set in motion further cycles of conflict in the region, including the devastating war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that has involved many other countries in Africa and has claimed the lives of more than 3 million people. I can tell people trying to visualise what that means that it is the whole of the population of Northern Ireland doubled. That gives some perspective. It gives an idea of the numbers who were murdered.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) referred to some of the issues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cases of police brutality against migrants have been catalogued. There have been cases involving Congolese soldiers. Some were charged with rape. Unfortunately, in that region, rape seems to be used as a weapon against women. The hon. Member for Islington North referred to that practice, and each and every one of us inside and outside this Chamber is deeply disturbed by it.
According to Mr Rupert Colville, 14 officers were acquitted. He added that the UN human rights workers on the ground were still carefully analysing the judgment, but said that in the light of what is known so far,
“the judiciary has not met the expectations of the numerous victims of rape who had fully participated in the trial.”
In the trial, women were asked for their statements and they made them. The trial that went ahead was for a mass rape that took place in 2012, but again no one has been made accountable for that. It seems that they have all been able to get away with it—or most of them have. Perhaps in his response the Minister can say whether there have been any discussions with the Democratic Republic of the Congo about the atrocities.
Elsewhere in the region, a decades-long conflict in northern Uganda has abated in intensity, but the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army has increased its activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Central African Republic.
There is great concern—it is certainly a concern of mine and I believe that others are concerned as well—in relation to business. From the background notes that we have been given and from our own previous knowledge and discussions, we are aware that some western companies are very keen to push into the DRC and start drilling. We must be ever mindful of the human rights of the local people, their land ownership and their lives.
Let me quote from the notes. A recent report by Kofi Annan’s Africa Progress Panel claimed that five mining deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone were sold to western firms for $1.36 billion less than they were worth, short-changing the people of the Congo. I am not against big business—far from it—but I like to see fairness and transparency and what is right, and I am afraid that in this instance those are all sadly missing. It seems that some people and some companies—not all—wish to go ahead and override the opinions of local people.
It is important that we also put this point on the record. There is some indication that the world-renowned Virunga national park, home to the rare mountain gorillas, is involved. That is something that we are probably aware of from our own interests outside the Chamber. Again, some companies have said that they will not explore for oil, but one company, SOCO, has declared that it is quite happy to pursue any of the rights for oil in those hills. Other companies—Total, the French oil giant, and Britain’s Dominion Petroleum—have said that they will certainly not do that.
It is important, when we realise that things have been undervalued and the Congolese people let down, to remember the following. Some 7 million children in the DRC lack access to education. Some 2.4 million children are acutely malnourished. Malaria, cholera and measles are a major threat due to inadequate health care, water supplies and sanitation. Roads are a mess, and electricity is scarce and expensive. Some 6.3 million people require food support. That is what is happening in the Congo. Then we see some big businesses relentlessly pursuing dividends for their people.
Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)
The hon. Gentleman is making a first-class speech, if I may say so. What he says about the requirement for transparency is absolutely true, and the UK is currently signing up to the extractive industries transparency initiative. It is fair to say that many of these deals in the past have involved middlemen who take off huge amounts of money and subsequently sell on to extractive industry companies. Perhaps the key thing for us is to ensure that the companies based in the UK adhere to the standards that we would expect them to.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I say to the Minister that there is an indication that some British companies are being morally and financially correct, but other companies are not, and those companies need to be made accountable. I think that that is the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, and I fully endorse it.
As a whole, the region continues to host more than 1 million refugees and 10 million internally displaced persons. That is a vast number—10 million internally displaced persons. One major source of those conflicts has been disputes over group and national membership. Ethnic, racial and religious populations have been identified as illegitimate members of local communities and nations, and their exclusion has been used to legitimise individual persecution, ethnic violence, civil war and genocide. Targeted populations have been forcibly displaced from their homes, social networks and governmental protection, and they have been forced to seek refuge within their own countries and across borders.
If we look at specific countries in the region, it is clear that there is persecution against Christians. Mombasa in Kenya has been perceived as a place where there is freedom to preach and share Christianity, but some in that community have different intentions. Worthy News reported:
“Three people were injured after a mob of about 10 assailants attacked worshipers at a church in Bamburi, Mombasa last week, according to All Africa Global Media. The gang gained entry into the Bride of the Lamb International Ministries compound after they cut through an iron fence; after the assault, they fled to the adjacent Tower of Faith Church where they injured four others.
Bride of the Lamb International Ministries Chairman Michael Peter said that the attacks were intended to target the clergy.
‘This is not the first time our ministry has been attacked,’ said Peter. ‘Over the past few weeks we have had attacks on our churches across the country including our residence here.’
Peter said the ministry had reported the attacks numerous times to the Bamburi police station, but to date no action has been taken.”
That report describes attacks specifically on a religious minority group, namely Christians in Kenya. I will mention a couple of other countries as well, to highlight the problems that we face.
In Zanzibar, Tanzania, there was serious violence driven by—excuse my Northern Ireland accent—“Vugu vugu la uamsho”, the Revival Movement for the Preservation of Islam, which claimed to be wiping out all Christians from the Zanzibar archipelago, mainly Zanzibar Island. Churches were burnt, church property was looted and Christians, especially Church leaders, were threatened with death. The Zanzibar archipelago is the scene of serious hostilities against Christians, not only on the islands but on mainland Tanzania. Many of us would not imagine that there would be any problems in Tanzania, but there certainly are. We must highlight the problems during this debate, and I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of what our Government can do about them.
In Tanzania, there are strong Islamic militant groups that often persecute Christians heavily. On mainland Tanzania, the push for the further spread of Islam is less violent but equally persistent. Part of that push is happening through the constitutional review process and the strategic infiltration of main sectors of society. Such groups are putting people in society so that they can directly influence what happens and impact on those of a Christian faith. If the push for secession succeeds, the presence of the Church on Zanzibar and Pemba Island is likely to be reduced to nearly zero. That cannot be allowed to happen, and I hope that the Minister can give us some answers.
The frantic moves of Islamists in mainland Tanzania will continue. For the Church, that means that difficult times are likely to be ahead. Kenya and Tanzania are just two of the nations in the region in which Christians are experiencing increasing persecution. I recently spoke to a constituent who is a member of a local Church of Ireland congregation in Newtownards, one of the main towns in my constituency, who told me how the lives of two of their missionaries in Tanzania were being made more difficult every day. That is a contribution from some of those I represent, who are telling me what is happening on the ground.
The fact is that although many of the nations we are discussing are Christian on paper, the Government are not supporting those ideals or dealing with the persecution against Christians. There seems to be a somewhat lackadaisical attitude to the incidents that have occurred, and it is time that our Government asked the Governments in those countries to stand up against such actions. That is where we, in this Chamber, must come in. We must speak up for those in the region who are being persecuted, we must stand up for the two missionaries I have mentioned who are linked to that church in my constituency, and we must apply pressure to the Government to do what is right. That can be done in numerous ways, such as through embassies, through the fair distribution of international aid—I am aware of examples of international aid being directed away from Christian religious groups because of their beliefs—and by applying pressure at all levels to ensure that Governments realise that, although we seek to help them and their populations, we cannot and will not do so while closing our eyes to the plight of people whose only crime is to follow Jesus.
I support the hon. Member for Islington North in this debate, and I ask the Minister again what is being done to combat the problems and what the Government will pledge to do from this day forward. My constituents are deeply interested in the matter, and I know that I am not the only MP who has an interest in it. Let us use any influence that we wield for the good of the people in the great lakes region—and, indeed, throughout the world.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for the debate. I want to make four points. First, briefly, the Prime Minister in government has been keen to emphasise the Christian nature of the country and the Government. I had the opportunity, with the Bishop of Durham, other Church leaders and some parliamentarians, with the assistance of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to visit the great lakes last summer. We were hosted by local Church leaders in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi.
The role of the Church, post-conflict—and, more critically, post-border—in reconstruction is one that the Government, in their international development and foreign affairs work, must build on. I will come on to Burundi in my fourth point, but there and in Rwanda we see Church leaders, from different ethnic minorities in each country, working alongside communities that have been in conflict in different and tragic ways more or less ever since independence. Whether we wish it or not, a critical element of our role is to assist in bringing together the Churches to work on the problems in the region. There are a variety of Churches; the Catholic Church is hosting a meeting today, and the Church of England has got a particular role in relation to the problems we are discussing, which I hope that the Government will capitalise on. The Church of England—not least in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire—has done an immense amount of work over many years to build links across the great lakes, not least in Burundi.
Secondly, I want to talk about the group that nobody seems to be dealing with, namely the Twa community. The Department for International Development, wrongly, does nothing about them; it has done nothing about them for many years, so that is a criticism not merely of any changes made by this Government, but of the continuing lack of priority given to the group. That community of former forest dwellers across the great lakes is small in number now. It was once great in number, but its members were murdered in greater numbers than anyone else under Belgian colonial rule; vast numbers of the Twa were murdered over the past century. Those who remain in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Burundi are the most impoverished of the poor. They are the most disfranchised and the least represented. Having been removed from the forest for the benefits of nature conservation and western tourists—
John Mann
—and business, they have incredible levels of inter-communal violence, particularly sexual violence and rape, and they are struggling to cope with life outside the forest.
It is not for me to come up with or even to suggest solutions, other than to say that without question, DFID ought to give proper priority to projects working with the Twa, not least those that develop youth leadership and potential community leadership. There is some exciting church-led work in that area, which is creating new leaders for the future. That is vital if the Twa are to continue to exist and not disappear in what I would describe, I think accurately, as an assisted genocide—a genocide assisted by the inaction of everyone, both inside and outside the country. We share some responsibility for that. With our proud history of international development, such projects ought to be the kind of thing we are good at. It is rather shameful that over the past decade we have done nothing about the Twa in those countries.
Thirdly, other Members have already raised the attempts by SOCO, a UK-based oil exploration company, to plunder the reserves in the Virunga national park. I would make two points. I do not wish to be trite, but it is a fact that there are more parliamentarians in Britain than mountain gorillas in the wild. If we balloted our constituents on which they would like to preserve for the future, I suspect that parliamentarians would lose out, and lose out heavily. We have a responsibility to future generations. It must be cost-effective to preserve wildlife. There may well be roles for the Twa to play in that, for their economic livelihoods. After all, they are removed from the forest to allow tourists to visit the mountain gorillas and bring in hard currency.
The point is more fundamental than that for human beings. The national parks in the great lakes region are the natural borders and boundaries that, more than anything else, will preserve nation states and restrict cross-border conflicts. The Akagera national park between Rwanda and Tanzania is being rebuilt. It has an horrendous history from the genocide, but, as well as having income-generating potential for the country, it serves as a natural brake on cross-border issues. The Volcans national park in the north-west corner of Rwanda, the Virunga and others serve a similar purpose. The preservation of such natural borders and the wildlife they contain is therefore ethically right and economically sensible for the long term—for tourism and livelihoods in 50, 100 or 150 years, not just the profits for SOCO or whatever in the next 10 or 20 years. Such preservation is critical to these countries’ competitive advantage, but also to minimising conflict now and in future. That should be seen as part of our foreign policy and international development work, and be given much higher strategic priority.
Fourthly and finally, I want to make a slightly longer point about Burundi, which is 178th out of the 187 countries assessed by the UN for poverty; it is not the poorest, but it is virtually the poorest country in the world. The UN says that Burundi is likely to achieve one out of the 18 millennium development goals. That is beyond the scale of most countries. For a post-conflict country with such a level of poverty to go without support from this country—here I will criticise this Government—is, whatever the reason, a mistake that must be reversed by whoever is in power after 2015. We must stop our lack of engagement with Burundi on international development.
I know that the Minister is a good man and a good Minister, in my experience. I do not normally give even the most modest praise to Tories, but he is a good man and has been, in my view, a good Minister. As he has been to Burundi, I would like to hear about his experience; perhaps he might like to give us his recommendations about how the Government should relate to that country, because it is applying for Commonwealth status. I hope that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will engage with Burundi on not just a parliamentary but an official level, and on a more intense basis. We should be in there, assisting a country that is increasingly looking to the English language, to the Commonwealth—not least because of the trade links with east Africa—and to us. There is a lot that we can offer.
Many criticisms can rightly be levelled at Burundi. It is not exactly a pluralistic democracy of the highest calibre. Currently, there is not the freedom of media and non-governmental organisations that we would want and expect. However, Burundi has had the most successful repatriation of displaced people in recorded history. More than 1 million refugees have returned, without civil war breaking out, and reintegrated into one of the world’s poorest economies. Although there have been, and remain, issues of land disputes and so on, on balance the process has been incredibly successful compared with any other such mass movement of people back into a country after they had been driven out by civil war. Many second-generation Burundians were born in Tanzania but have returned to their historic roots, sometimes with elderly family, sometimes without. That has been handled extraordinarily well. We should praise them for that, but we should also be in there with them.
The people of Burundi have recovered from what was an almost hidden war, certainly in the western media, in which as many people were killed as in Rwanda, over a longer period and with some of the same ethnic conflict bases. If any of that had ever been reported by the western media, people in this country would have been jumping up and down. But it was a secret civil war in a country that no one had ever heard of and that very few people across the world and in Britain have heard of. Yet Burundi has come out of that conflict, so we should be there using our great expertise in pluralist democracy and in building up civil society and its institutions. We have expertise in how the Churches can contribute to that process, because they—not least the Church of England—already play a significant part in what is happening in Burundi, and I would say a positive one.
There are many reasons why modest investment by DFID and better engagement—including by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—would pay great dividends for us, for Burundi and for the great lakes region. I hope that the Minister will give some encouraging signs that this country will re-engage. If this Government do not, I want to put on the record for whoever is in power after 2015 the fact that this demand will not go away. We should re-engage, DFID should re-engage, and our diplomatic staff should be in Burundi, representing us and assisting the country.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I am delighted to contribute to this debate, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I do not want to cover the same points that other Members have articulated so well, but I would like to make a few observations.
It is good that we have had a debate focusing on human rights across the great lakes region as a whole rather than looking only at specific countries. When we look at the great lakes region, and hear from many of the people trying to grapple with the human rights issues and to build towards peace and reconciliation in a sustainable way right across the region, we have to be conscious of what John Hume—who is from my part of the world—used to talk about, which is the framework of the problem being the framework of the solution, and to emphasise that if we are to solve conflicts we need to look at the totality of relationships and affirm the primacy of rights. Whether we look at the great lakes region on a country-specific basis or at how the conflicts there enmesh and affect each other, we see the importance of those aspects. It is important that the hon. Member for Islington North has focused so heavily on the human rights dimension in the region.
There have been other debates on countries in this region, including the debate in the Chamber last week on Rwanda, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to. Sometimes there is an understandable inclination for people here to look at what is happening in particular countries, at what particular regimes have done and at the progress that has been made in various transitions, and basically ask, “Do people pass the good egg test?” If they do, it is felt that we should not raise too many of the other concerns that exist. We hear that sometimes in relation to Rwanda and some of the other countries in the region, where people are trying to encourage progress and to recognise, support and uphold some of the positive developments that have taken place. However, at times people seem more relaxed or even complacent about the serious human rights issues that exist in a number of different regimes.
It is also important to reflect, as we have done already in this debate, that we must listen not only to the political voices from these countries but to the voices of human rights activists, of disparate civil society and indeed of pastoral leadership, right across the churches in these different countries. Those pastoral leaders are basically saying that there are standards and networks that could be asserted and built up, and they are asking the international community and the diplomatic community to reinforce their efforts. They also try to give the international community and the diplomatic community a context. Earlier, I referred to the request that has come from the episcopal conference in the Congo for an international conference on the extractive industries, which could create a context for dealing with quite a number of the issues we have discussed, including on a cross-border basis, and doing so to a full regional standard that deals with land rights, labour rights and all the issues of governance, while also promoting a strong anti-corruption agenda.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) asked some questions about Burundi, and he talked about the progress that has taken place there. Of course, in Burundi there is a real danger of regression, which is why I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is regrettable that the Department for International Development took the decision about Burundi that it did some time ago, because it basically sent the signal that Burundi was in the “done” box and that everything there is okay, when it is quite clear that things in Burundi are teetering in a dangerous way. After her recent visit to Burundi, Samantha Power said:
“If you take a political crisis on the one hand and combine it with armaments on the other, those are precisely the ingredients for the kind of violence Burundi has managed to avoid now for a good few years”.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today was also in Burundi recently, and it would be interesting to hear him address that particular situation in the country.
Regarding Rwanda, the US State Department has at least moved now to being quite clear about its concern regarding the number of murders that have taken place of prominent Rwandan exiles, which appear to have been politically motivated. The US has also focused on human rights problems in the country, including the targeting of political opponents and human rights activists. There are questions to be asked about the rule of law, the security forces, the judiciary and the restrictions on civil liberties. At least it appears that some clarity is starting to emerge within the US Government in relation to some of these concerns. However, it is not clear that the same clarity is emerging within the UK Government.
In relation to Congo, I can understand that as we see the situation there changing, with the M23 receding, people now think that there is a more benign situation there. In the absence of the M23, however, what we are seeing in parts of eastern Congo is, of course, all sorts of disparate paramilitary elements breaking out there. At one level, those elements are too small to be of any real threat to the Kinshasa Government, but at another level they are visiting absolute havoc on the people in those areas. In terms of human rights concerns, those groups should be as big a concern to us as if we were talking about one single coherent paramilitary entity.
It is also important to recognise that at times there appears to be impotence and indifference in relation to the Congolese Government as far as diplomatic interests are concerned. For example, going back to some of the issues that were raised earlier about Congo and the issue of conditionality of aid—the recent EU report was cited—a question arises: is there really any conditionality attached to aid in the Congo whatsoever? When he replies to the debate, can the Minister tell us whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or DFID have any set of requirements regarding any change that they want to see the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Government implement? We hear the language about efforts “on increased donor co-ordination”, but what does that mean? What are the standards that apply, and what is the purpose of and what are the targets for those so-called efforts, and where are they getting to? Is a clear message being given to the Government of the DRC and, if so, is that message being taken?
In a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Jason Stearns summed up what we know is the difficulty and the dilemma for the international community as it tries to have a positive influence in a situation such as that in Congo. He talked about the difficulty of
“the dueling imperatives of maintaining good relations with the government in Kinshasa and pushing back on issues of governance and human rights.”
He added that in those circumstances it was difficult to see the “political clout” being mustered that would
“coordinate policy, impose conditions on aid, and hold the Congolese government accountable.”
That is an authoritative observation and I hope that the Minister will assure us, when he responds to the debate, that there are some more positive aspects and that some more active good is being done by the international community, particularly by the UK Government.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to speak in a debate chaired by you.
I thank all Members who have participated in what has been—almost by definition—a wide-ranging debate concerning a hugely important but under-addressed issue. It is under-addressed not only in the House of Commons but in the UK as a whole.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for his wide-ranging introduction to the historic context of this region, which is so important. We need to be involved with and to participate in the process of trying to achieve progress in the region, not only because we are of humankind but because we have a historic responsibility in the region, and we need to address the deficiencies of the past in order to make progress in the future.
The issues that have been raised during this debate include the importance of considering the fact that this region is one of the richest areas on the planet in terms of the extractive industries but the people who live in the region do not see the benefit of those industries. It is vital to put right at the top of the priority list the importance of good governance, because good governance is a precondition of being able to make progress in the region.
In certain areas of the region, such as Rwanda, we have seen progress on material wealth. Anyone here who has visited Rwanda will have seen the progress on infrastructure and the Government’s capacity to deliver to the people of Rwanda in practical terms.
We have also heard concerns today, including from my hon. Friend, that the Rwandan Government are not allowing the development of an effective Opposition within a pluralistic democracy in the way that we would like. That is a common concern. Last week I participated in a debate commemorating the genocide in Rwanda, and the progress that has been made in Rwanda is extraordinary, but one sometimes wishes that some of the language used by Rwandan politicians and those who speak for Rwanda was more measured when we hear of deaths occurring in other parts of the world. Now that Rwanda is in the Commonwealth, it has accepted the importance of a pluralistic democracy, which Members here would like to see. We would like the Rwandan Government to take that on board much more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) spoke with great authority on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and he obviously did a great deal of work to prepare for this debate. Shortly after I took on the Africa brief, I visited the Democratic Republic of the Congo in November 2011 when the last elections occurred. I was struck by the people’s massive enthusiasm to vote in those elections. I was in Kinshasa, and the election I saw was in some difficulty because of the electorate’s intense passion to vote. We might be encouraging some of our electorate to take steps towards a polling station over the next few days, but in the Democratic Republic of the Congo no such exhortation was needed. The difficulty within the Democratic Republic of the Congo is that the elections delivered in 2011 are not widely accepted as credible, which has been a block to progress. As we progress towards 2016, what steps are being taken to ensure that belief in the system, which was not there in 2011, can be secured by 2016? In 2011 the electoral authority, CENI, was widely discredited, and it is important that the Democratic Republic of the Congo has a Government in which it can believe by 2016.
We then heard about the conditionality of aid, which is another issue that kept cropping up. Good governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is important because this has been a difficult period. I was in the country about a year ago when there were intense problems relating to eastern Congo and the activities of the M23. Some progress has been made since then, and I commend not only the UK Government but the Minister personally for his hard work. What is his current assessment of the progress of the development of governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Now that there is less pressure and immediate violence in eastern Congo, what is the current position?
I am also interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland had to say about returning asylum seekers and his worrying accounts of the way they have been treated. I support what he said about investigating those cases and seeing what is actually being done to address the appalling conduct of the security forces, as it seems, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—if I may call him my hon. Friend—spoke eloquently about the importance of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He also referred to the extractive industries and the importance of the churches in the region. On my first visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2011 I was privileged to leave Kinshasa, which in my experience is not the most attractive city on the planet, to go south to Bas-Congo to visit the region’s idyllic Salvation Army church. Every day, churches are carrying out intensive work on behalf of the region’s people. The churches have a positive role, which the UK Government recognise, but they need to recognise that role more often because people work extremely hard to carry matters forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke eloquently about Burundi, for which I am glad. I think the Minister went there recently.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
indicated assent.
Ian Lucas
My hon. Friend set out Burundi’s position on the index, which concerns me deeply. There is a real issue with the UK’s engagement and development of relationships with smaller countries in Africa. Some of the decisions that we made before 2010 relating to withdrawal from smaller countries should be revisited. I have taken on board what he says. I have a particular interest in smaller countries in Africa that leads me in the same direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has again brought his substantial experience of African issues to bear. He stressed that the primacy of rights is important and is linked to the essential question of governance. It is about the capacity of countries in the region to deliver rights for their citizens and good governance that improves lives. As we speak, there is a great deal of intense work in the region. I mentioned earlier the progress that has been made in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda through the peace, security and co-operation framework, which led to intense international activity. I commend Mary Robinson’s work in the region. I would like to hear about the UK Government’s position on what is happening there at present. What more needs to be done? What are the UK Government’s priorities?
The extractive industries are important, and we had an excellent suggestion for holding a conference to try to impose a structure to deliver better governance and to emphasise the obligations of international companies to work with Governments in the region to ensure that the people of the countries concerned benefit.
The Government have done excellent work on sexual violence, but worrying concerns have been raised about the acquittals of officers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What is the Government’s assessment of the effectiveness of the procedures that are in place to address sexual violence in the region? What steps are the Government taking in response to those concerns? Will the Minister also update us on efforts to integrate the preventing sexual violence in conflict imitative in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and throughout the great lakes region?
This has been a wide-ranging debate on a massive topic for a massive region with huge problems. I thank all of the participants, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised by me and my colleagues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I particularly congratulate the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this important debate and on the knowledgeable and detailed way in which he set out many of the challenges across the great lakes region. I know that he has a particular passion and interest in the important area of human rights, and that came over strongly in his contribution.
The hon. Gentleman neatly set out the challenges of the region. He highlighted the extensive suffering, both historic and, sadly, more recent, in the DRC and elsewhere in the region; the appalling atrocities, particularly those that relate to rape being used as a weapon of conflict; the significant challenges around the illicit use of extractives; the important issue of Virunga national park; and the challenge of the failed asylum seekers. He also mentioned Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. He packed a tremendous amount into his contribution.
If I may, I will try to respond specifically to the points that all Members made. It has been an excellent debate and all the contributions have been significant, powerful and articulate. That demonstrates the great knowledge that exists across the House in these important areas and our ongoing interest, as parliamentarians in the UK, in doing everything we can to improve the lives of those who live in the great lakes region.
It might be an obvious point to make, but we are talking about vast geographical areas, which create part of the challenge. The DRC alone is approximately the size of western Europe. That is why it is important that we continue with our development assistance to help lift people in the great lakes region out of poverty, and that we support the work of improving political and human rights situations on the ground.
The hon. Member for Islington North rightly raised the issue of conflict minerals. The OECD’s “Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas” includes specific guidance on gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum, all of which are used in consumer electronics. We encourage and expect UK businesses to respect all laws and the voluntary principles. The United Kingdom is chair of the voluntary principles on security and human rights, which are designed to guide companies in maintaining the safety and security of their operations in a framework that encourages respect for human rights. I am the Minister responsible and I am encouraging our team, as part of our chairmanship, to persuade more companies and more countries, both in the region and internationally, to participate in the voluntary principles.
It is important that the DRC should be committed to improving openness and the accountable management of resources. We encourage the DRC to pursue its EITI accreditation and believe that that is important. I met with President Kabila and Prime Minister Matata in February this year. During my visit to Kinshasa, I reiterated our view that it is important that the DRC retains its candidature status. That will ensure that the DRC and its people get full benefit from the mineral wealth of the country and maintain investor confidence. That idea is a main driver behind our Prime Minister’s G8 agenda of tax, trade and transparency, which could play an important role in ensuring a fair balance between the return on capital invested and people in the DRC benefiting significantly from the minerals in their country.
The hon. Members for Islington North, for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bassetlaw (John Mann) raised the issue of Virunga national park. I want all Members to understand that the UK continues to oppose oil exploration in Virunga national park. Many of the points that the hon. Gentlemen made were absolutely right. We urge the companies to act appropriately and the DRC Government to respect the international conventions to which it is already a signatory. We are committed to supporting UK companies in the great lakes. Investment needs to be responsible and sustainable. I reassure the hon. Gentlemen that I have lobbied in the DRC, making clear the UK Government’s position verbally and in writing.
The hon. Members for Islington North and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) rightly mentioned the issue of failed asylum seekers returning to the DRC. We need to acknowledge that the UK has a proud history of helping those who need to escape persecution to access the UK. Each application, however, is judged on its individual merits, and any decision to refuse asylum is made on the basis that it is safe for someone to return to their country of origin. All Members will be aware that the courts have ruled that failed asylum seekers who are returned to the DRC are not at risk of treatment contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland sent me the report to which he referred.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of elections in the DRC. When I met President Kabila in February, I encouraged him to draw up a clear electoral timetable to cover the period from now until 2016. We continue to work closely with the DRC Government, the UN and international partners as those plans develop. Progress needs to be made on the outstanding recommendations of the EU election observation report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We encourage the Congolese Government to implement those recommendations. To respond to the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that in November last year I met with the head of the Congolese electoral commission and encouraged the full implementation of the reforms. We offered our support on that.
Jeremy Corbyn
Will the Minister be talking to the UN and MONUSCO about how they behave, what they will do during the elections and what support they can give the electoral process?
Mark Simmonds
I assure the hon. Gentleman that those conversations not only will take place, but have started already. When I was last in Goma, I met Martin Kobler and we discussed the security situation, the broader political situation and the role that Church groups and others can play in building security and stability.
There are several points that I want to make quickly in the time I have left. The first is on the donor co-ordination of development spending. DFID leads donor co-ordination in the DRC and is working closely with the Government, MONUSCO and other donors to ensure that our development assistance can best help the people in the region out of poverty. We have significant accountability mechanisms in place. The UK is one of the largest donors to the DRC. DFID supports inclusive institutions, the empowering of citizens and the holding of service providers to account. Support to the DRC is based on DFID’s partnership principles, of which hon. Members will be aware.
A number of Members touched on the appalling levels of sexual violence. Tackling that is a significant priority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the preventing sexual violence initiative. We are holding a conference in June. I am delighted that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a signatory to that initiative and wants to be a key participant in the conference. I went to Goma with the Archbishop of Canterbury, where I visited some of the victims of these appalling events. I reiterate my thanks to faith groups and recognise the significant contribution they make and continue to make in tackling sexual violence and in building capacity and rehabilitation for those who have suffered sexual violence.
Our role is not just bilateral but multilateral, through important organisations such as the UN Human Rights Council. The hon. Member for Strangford rightly raised the persecution of Christians, and we share his concerns about the rising tide of violence against Christians in middle east Africa and the north of Africa. On Tanzania, there is an impressive record of peace and stability, although we are concerned about the violence that led to the death of the priest in Zanzibar, which he mentioned. Alongside our EU partners, we have urged that the highest levels of the authorities investigate that.
I want to touch on Burundi, which a number of Members raised as a particular concern, especially the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. We give aid to Burundi; we contribute 15% of EU funding and 30% of World Bank funding to the country. There will be significant sums of money in the next three or four-year period through the EU loan, and Burundi is targeted to get more than €400 million. We are, however, concerned about the country. That is one of the reasons why I visited. I was the first Foreign Office Minister to go to Burundi for many, many decades. I discussed some of the existing challenges with the President. We are committed to reducing poverty and supporting human rights and free, fair and credible elections while building the capacity of civil society, and there are concerns in Burundi about political tensions and the closure of political space.
In the time I have left, I want to reassure all hon. Members that the UK Government will keep the great lakes region at the forefront of our priorities, play our role bilaterally and through multilateral institutions and support the UN deployment in the eastern part of the DRC as well as the wider peace and security framework.
Park Homes
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
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Howarth. I begin by welcoming the Mobile Homes Act 2013, which goes a long way towards rebalancing the rights of park home owners and site owners. Overwhelming evidence of appalling practices made it an imperative to introduce legislation to prevent unscrupulous site owners from blocking residents’ sales on the open market. It was also obvious that greater protection should be made available through enhanced local authority powers and reform of the licensing system. I have spoken at some length on such issues over the years, but I will just touch on them today.
I again congratulate my constituent Sonia McColl, a park home owner who set up the national park home owners’ justice campaign and who has fought tirelessly on park home issues, particularly sale blocking. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on successfully leading his private Member’s Bill on mobile homes through to enactment. Different parts of the 2013 Act are being implemented at different times, so it is difficult to make an early, overall judgment on the Act’s impact. What assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the Department for Communities and Local Government’s communication strategy to inform park home owners of their new rights and site owners of their new responsibilities? On one site, a notice has been erected stating that all sales must be carried out through the site owner’s office. How is the new legislation on sale blocking being monitored and enforced?
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on all her work. Without her, much of this would not have happened. The Mobile Homes Act 2013 has already made an overnight difference, but a big issue that I have always campaigned about is the 10% charge payable to site owners. Will she say a little about that?
Annette Brooke
I thank the hon. Lady for her great support throughout our battle to secure legislation. I called this debate in the light of a huge new petition against the up-to 10% commission on the sale of park homes payable to site owners. Sonia McColl has collected signatures from some 30,000 park home residents from 956 parks across the United Kingdom and the petition will be presented to the Government in July. I have always accepted that there needs to be a reasonable return on capital to site owners, but I do not know in detail the justification for particular levels of commission. Given the strength of feeling from park home owners, it is right to put their views forward and to examine how their concerns about being overcharged for the level of service received might be addressed. The answer may lie in more transparency and accountability. Those who have signed the petition are calling for a proper debate on the fairness of the commission payment and they argue that previous inquiries into the charge have been biased and heavily reliant on information provided by park operators, rather than park home owners.
It is interesting to note that the maximum level of commission was reduced in 1983 from 15% to 10%. While there has been no change since then, the dissatisfaction of park home owners with this state of affairs has continued. The arguments for from the site owners and their representative bodies and the arguments against from park home owners and their associations remain much the same. Park home owners argue that as a site owner does nothing to earn the commission, they do not see why he or she should receive it. The argument is reinforced when occupiers highlight how they have increased the value of their homes by adding porches and other improvements at their own expense. Many park home owners claim that there has been little investment in their sites and that essential maintenance has not been carried out. Site owners say that the commission payment is part of the income, along with pitch fees and selling new mobile homes, that they have always expected to receive to make the businesses viable. They say that if the commission was reduced or abolished, they would either have to increase pitch fees accordingly to make up the difference or go out of business.
In March 2007, the Government published the responses to their consultation on the park home commission rate, which outlined options for a more transparent payment system for mobile homes. They concluded that the current level should be retained but that there should be more transparency on the payment within agreements between park home owners and site owners. An option to reduce the rate with no pitch fee increase was rejected, although it unsurprisingly received overwhelming support from park home owners.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the pitch fee is one of the biggest problems? It can become a tool for bullying, which then overrides everything else.
Annette Brooke
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. There seems to be a complex and opaque relationship between the pitch fee and the commission payment.
A third option, to scrap the commission on the sale of a park home for new agreements only without a limitation on a compensatory increase in pitch fees, received little support. If pitch fees increase further, I concede that there is a danger for residents on relatively low and often fixed incomes.
In 2012, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government carried out an inquiry into the park homes industry and undoubtedly contributed to the 2013 Act. It concluded that site owners should continue to receive up to 10% commission from the sale of a park home. However, as well as some oral evidence, it relied heavily on the 2007 conclusions and on an earlier paper from 2002 when reaching its own conclusion. It is misleading to say that we have evidence from as recently as 2012 on the issue.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I sat on the Communities and Local Government Committee and was part of that investigation. It is right that we concluded that any reduction in the 10% rate would lead to an increase in the pitch fees referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). Given that, we need to reconsider the issue and to have another debate. I commend the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on greater transparency, which should give home owners the confidence that money is being reinvested in site maintenance and upkeep.
Annette Brooke
I commend my hon. Friend and all members of the Communities and Local Government Committee, because the report was really useful and introduced elements into the 2013 Act that might not otherwise have been there.
Returning to site owners’ incomes, there are at least three elements, including the initial siting of the mobile home, the pitch fees and the commission payment. I have a scenario that outlines the siting of a new unit. Suppose that a site owner purchases a new unit for £60,000. Transport may cost £10,000 and they may have to spend a further £10,000 for connection to services and landscaping. The unit could sell for £160,000. I have no idea how realistic those figures are, but I am trying to illustrate the potential for a significant return. Suppose that the home is sold within a year, the commission clicks in. In another scenario, a park home owner could replace their home, meaning that they will be charged for connections to services and landscaping, which means more potential profit. It is therefore difficult to get into all the payments that are actually made by park home owners.
I must confess that I am totally confused about the respective purposes of the pitch fee and the commission payment, but they are clearly related, if the situation is such that if commission is reduced, pitch fees will have to go up. As ever, I consulted House of Commons Library briefings for clarification. The standard note on the 2013 Act states:
“The pitch fee is the sum paid to the site owner in return for permission to station a mobile home on the pitch and use the common areas of the site. The requirement to pay a pitch fee is an express term in the written agreement. Pitch fees are reviewable annually and can usually only be increased in line with RPI plus the cost of expenditure on improving (rather than maintaining) the site.”
In a recent letter, the Minister said that a commission is not an estate agency charge, but an important income strand for park home businesses, enabling them to ensure that sites are properly managed and maintained. He said that if the commission was reduced or abolished, there would need to be a compensatory increase in pitch fees to cover the shortfall in income. That is where I find it difficult to understand exactly what money is being used for what, and I can see where the questions come from park home owners.
On pitch fees, there should be available for inspection a transparent and audited set of published accounts. I have with me a file of cases from across the country. Residents have supplied evidence that owners of their sites are not properly managing or maintaining their parks, making it harder for residents to sell their homes. They have asked why site owners should receive the 10% commission if they are not supplying the services they are meant to. Park home owners argue that it is they who work hard to make improvements to their property, which helps the site owner market his business.
The 2013 Act will introduce some accountability, with an annual review of pitch fees; an opportunity for park home owners to challenge pitch fees on lack of maintenance or deterioration of the site; and a requirement for site owners to justify increases above the retail prices index. I would be interested to hear how the Minister envisages those provisions working; whether the historical position in which many park home owners find themselves can be addressed; and whether it would be possible to have a clear statement on the issues. I imagine that such a statement could not be made fully today, but if we could have something simple placed in the Library, it would be helpful for park home owners and Members of Parliament to see what the future holds, so that we can check whether anything else needs to be done. I fear that we will not pick up all the historical problems, but I hope that future purchasers will have clarity in their written agreements about all payments and will be clear on the annual reviews. Also, I still come back to this question: is it not reasonable to have audited published accounts on pitch fees and the expenditure out of that?
Research by the National Association of Park Home Residents in November 2013 revealed that monthly pitch fees in 1,075 parks varied from £40 to £382. It seems generally accepted that the average fee is about £150 a month. For someone living on the basic state pension, while the pension is being increased by the consumer prices index, fees are being increased by the RPI. One can see how there are concerns out there.
Park home owners continually identify extra costs that creep in one way or another. Many park home owners referred to people who own flats or other dwellings, who pay a maintenance or service charge and a leasehold charge, but do not generally have to pay another 10%, on top of an estate agent’s fee, when they sell. That is where I feel published accounts would help. Park home owners pointed to providers such as McCarthy and Stone and looked at the many services provided in private sheltered accommodation. I think that there is a pretty good idea in those situations of what someone is paying for and what they are getting.
Park operators have argued that they cannot remain in business without the 10% commission charge. Yet our petitioners have pointed out that it would be foolish for a business to rely on an income that is unpredictable. It is difficult to predict how many new homes will be purchased, or used homes resold, in a year.
Many residents reported feeling trapped in their homes and unable to sell. Due to park rules, many sites are only for people of retirement age. The need to move into a nursing home or some other form of residential care is a real possibility. Having to give the park operator such a high percentage from the sale of their home reduces the amount the seller has to put towards their care.
There are other considerations. The Government acknowledge that the park homes sector plays an important role in the provision of low-cost housing for the elderly and that it frees up under-occupied homes that are much needed as we face a housing crisis. However, with pitch fees, other overheads and the 10% commission, many residents worry that the costs of owning a park home are becoming unviable. The issue of the 10% commission charge is undoubtedly a matter of concern.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on putting her points across so eloquently. It is important, after what was probably the biggest change to the sector in many years, that we review it from time to time.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation was based on proper and full research and consultation, with the Select Committee report and the consultation conducted by the Department for Communities and Local Government? The new licensing arrangements provide an opportunity for additional accountability, so does she agree that we should let the legislation bed down before reviewing it in, say, two to three years, as indeed the legislation provides for?
Annette Brooke
Yes, there is an important element of reviewing what is in place or is about to come in in the near future, but not all of that is entirely understood by park home owners. We need a clear statement of what is happening now and what will happen in the future, and we need to try to untangle the pitch fee and the commission to be clear what items we are talking about. For example, is the commission just for contingencies, or just for improvements? I find the issue confusing, and I do not think we have bottomed that out yet. I agree that we cannot make any big moves until we have reviewed the legislation properly, but I think we can move forward by getting more transparency.
Not surprisingly, the petition calls for a reduction in the commission rate. Petitioners are also interested in looking at whether we should consider the difference in value between the purchase and selling prices of the unit when a commission is applied. That might be quite complex if there is deterioration on the unit, but obviously, that is food for thought.
We need a full and frank debate on the issue. We need transparency on what the various payments are being used for, and we need to ensure that there is no further exploitation of park home owners. Exploitation is still going on regarding some of the utility charging. It should all be out in the open, but I am sure that we can all come forward with examples.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I apologise for my discourtesy in arriving late for the debate. As my hon. Friend knows, through the work we have done with the all-party group and the many debates in this Parliament, exploitation is the key point. I agree with her point on pitch fees, about where they go, what they are for and transparency, and she knows I do. However, the point is that the fee is effectively a charge, tax or levy on one group of home owners that would not be and is not accepted for any other form of property ownership. Once again, park home owners are put in a lesser category compared with everyone else we represent. That is the point.
Annette Brooke
I thank my hon. Friend for his support throughout the campaign. That is a valid point.
We must not just sit back. It is great that we have the legislation, but we need a continuous full and frank debate on the issue. As I said, we need transparency, and equally we need to ensure that the industry is viable and that responsible site owners have a viable business model.
We ought to praise good practice instead of just focusing, as we have to do, on some bad practice. We should praise and look at some good sites and find sites where residents are satisfied. That would be a good approach, and then we can make comparisons.
We have achieved a lot in ending the injustices that were being suffered, but we cannot be complacent until all park home owners are treated fairly. I ask the Minister to be prepared to look deeper into the matter to ensure that we get the right balance for site owners and park home owners.
There will be a lobby, organised by my constituent, at 4 pm on 2 July in Committee Room 10. I very much hope that the Minister will attend simply to set out what is going to happen with the existing legislation as far as pitch fees are concerned. Today, I hope, is the start of a constructive debate.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the hon. and learned Gentleman, may I ask whether he has permission to speak from the Member who introduced the debate and the Minister, because there is very little time left?
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
The Member who introduced the debate has signified that you did not approach her—that is the protocol you are supposed to observe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing a debate on this important issue, on which I have also received significant correspondence over the years as an MP. She has campaigned tirelessly for better protection for park home owners, and she was instrumental in securing the passage of the Mobile Homes Act 2013, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). She asked a couple of specific questions, which I will answer shortly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, the 2013 Act was the biggest shake-up in park home legislation for 30 years, and the Government were pleased to be able to support it during its passage through both Houses. It marks our commitment to ensuring that park home owners are protected and their rights are respected. One such right is the right to sell a park home without undue interference from the site owner. There was significant evidence that the site operator’s role in approving the purchaser had been abused by a number of unscrupulous individuals to block sales. The 2013 Act removed that opportunity by abolishing the site operator’s right to approve the person to whom a home should or could be sold. Provided that a person meets the relevant site rules, the sale can usually go ahead without the site owner being involved in the process until the purchaser notifies them that the sale has been completed and the pitch agreement has been assigned.
The new system for buying and selling has been in place since last May. It is much fairer than the old system and reduces the opportunity for abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it now needs to bed in. To answer the specific point about a review, a body such as the Select Committee might, after a sensible period, want to explore the progress of the Act.
We have put in place safeguards to ensure that the site owner receives the commission. Most importantly, however, they cannot demand it before the home is bought and the pitch agreement is assigned. That means the buyer, not the seller, is responsible for paying the commission. However, it is not payable until following completion, when the site owner provides the buyer, who is now the new home owner, with their bank details. If the new owner does not pay the commission, they will be in breach of the pitch agreement and at risk of losing their home. The maximum commission payable is 10% of the price paid for the home. Thus, when purchasing the home, the buyer pays 90% to the seller and retains 10% to pay as commission to the site operator.
I realise that some home owners object to the commission on the sale of a home. Some will feel aggrieved that they have to give up 10% of the purchase price, which is paid to the site owner, when they may believe they get little or nothing in return. Sometimes they see this charge as some kind of estate agent’s charge, despite the fact that the site owner is no longer involved in the sale process. However unfair home owners feel the commission is, the fact that it is payable should not come as a surprise. It is implied in the terms of the pitch agreement, and people should be aware that it is payable on the sale when they purchase the home.
The maximum rate of commission is 10%, having been reduced from 15% by the Conservative Government in 1983. Commission is a legitimate income stream for park home owners, and there is no evidence that the payment leads to profiteering. That was the finding of the independent report commissioned by the previous Government in 2002. The other income strands are from selling homes and from pitch fees. Income from selling homes is necessarily limited because it requires the availability of new pitches or site development. Changes in pitch fees are regulated, and they are linked to inflation and certain other costs that the operator incurs in running the site.
Anne Marie Morris
Will the Minister explain how a park home resident will know about the new provisions? If they do not know about them, they cannot take advantage of them, and they can still be bullied.
Kris Hopkins
I will come to that shortly.
There is limited time, but let me add that there was a further review in 2006. The then Government suggested that the commission be reduced to 7.5%. Following significant consultation, they decided there was no case for change, and they maintained the status quo. In spring 2012, the Select Committee did significant work on the operation of park homes and came up with a powerful and significant report, which obviously influenced the 2013 Act.
On the specific issues that have come out of the debate, the Government have spent a significant time shaping our answers to parliamentary questions so that we can give really full answers to the absolutely pertinent questions that Members have asked about the progress that has been made. I am quite prepared to put another document in the Library to provide some clarity and so that any Member who has not asked questions can have access to it. However, we have spent a significant period reviewing our answers to make sure we pick up the issues that have been raised.
In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), I should say that we have worked with trade bodies to make sure we disseminate information, and I hope good councils will also proactively contact local park owners to transmit it. However, this issue has been so significant and has had such a media presence—indeed, it has had significant coverage from Members on both sides of the House—that no site owner could legitimately say that they did not know about the change. In fact, if they failed to comply with the rules in the legislation, it would be a criminal act, and the council could pursue them.
To conclude, the Government do not see a need to review the 10% commission at this time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, it is appropriate, after a period, to reflect on what has happened. However, home owners are in a completely different position from the one they were in before the 2013 Act, and significant safety barriers have been put in place to stop unscrupulous individuals from pursuing home owners’ moneys. It is important that we have clarity and transparency on fees. The ability of councils to go on to a site to pursue malpractice or inappropriate maintenance is some safeguard and some comfort for individuals. I hope colleagues will continue to push the issue and to seek to make sure that greater protections are in place. At this time, however, we do not seek to review the commission on park homes.
Human Rights (North Korea)
(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, as you are one of the few Members of Parliament to have visited North Korea.
North Korea is arguably the world’s most closed nation, with the worst human rights record. Looking through all 30 articles of the universal declaration of human rights, it is difficult to identify any of them that have been implemented and respected in North Korea. Almost all are severely repressed or denied. Indeed, the former United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in North Korea has described the country as “sui generis”—in a category of its own.
For those reasons, debates such as this are long overdue. For too long—more than 60 years—what amounts to the world’s worst human rights crisis has also been its most overlooked. Why has the appalling inhumanity in North Korea not generated the same headlines or provoked the same mass public outrage as apartheid in South Africa? I hope that young people in our universities and elsewhere will take the issue to heart, as they did apartheid. When I was at the university of Oxford the week before last, I talked to students about it, and I encourage colleagues to do the same when they visit universities and colleges.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this enormously important debate. What he wishes is actually starting to happen. Students from Oxford have come to see me, and one important point that they made is that if we could get the BBC World Service to broadcast to Korea in Korean, its reputation for impartiality would be an enormous force for good.
Andrew Selous
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will say more about the BBC World Service and broadcasting in general in North Korea later in my remarks. I welcome his support and intervention.
On 17 February this year, the UN commission of inquiry on human rights in North Korea published its report, concluding that North Korea’s brutal regime is committing a wide range of crimes against humanity, arising from
“policies established at the highest level of State”.
Such crimes against humanity include,
“extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation”.
That is a pretty appalling list.
Among the reported abuses, the inquiry found that pregnant women are starved, while their babies are fed rats and snakes. More than 100,000 people—I think the Government estimate up to 200,000 people—are in gulags, which have existed for more than 60 years. There is systematic torture; everyone is forced to inform on each other; entire communities are denied adequate food; and the bodies of the dead are burned and then used for fertiliser.
When pregnant North Korean women are forced to return to North Korea from China—a serious issue in itself—they are subjected to forced abortions if it is suspected that the father of the child is Chinese. If the baby is born, it is killed. Widespread forced abortion and infanticide for purely racial reasons are just two of the brutal regime’s many barbaric acts.
The UN’s 400-page report, based on many hours of extensive first-hand testimony from victims and witnesses, details what it describes as “unspeakable atrocities”.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate, which matters to all our constituents. Many of mine came to see me to raise the issue.
The North Korean delegation to the UN has said that it will examine 185 of the 268 human rights recommendations handed to it by the member states of the UN Human Rights Council. Does my hon. Friend believe, based on what has happened in the past, that North Korea will take the recommendations seriously? If not, what pressure does he think the UN and the British Government should bring to bear on the North Korean Government?
Andrew Selous
I am pleased that my hon. Friend’s constituents are engaging with him on the issue. As I will say in a little while, we could press the UN to take the matter to the International Criminal Court, which would be one positive step that could come out of the UN commission of inquiry. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must not let the report just gather dust on the shelf.
The UN report concludes that,
“the gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
The chairman of the commission of inquiry, Mr Justice Michael Kirby, has compared the situation in North Korea to the holocaust, and, as he says, that is no exaggeration.
The inquiry has made a variety of recommendations, but most particularly, it calls, as I have just said, for a case to be referred to the ICC. I welcome the Government’s support for the inquiry’s recommendations; their efforts at the Human Rights Council in March, when a UN resolution endorsed the commission of inquiry’s findings and recommendations; and the recent briefing at the UN Security Council in the form of an Arria formula meeting. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps the United Kingdom is considering taking in future; what role the UK will play in continuing to lead international efforts to ensure that the commission of inquiry’s report is turned into a plan of action and does not sit on a shelf; and specifically what steps the Security Council can take to seek a referral to the ICC or another appropriate mechanism for justice and accountability.
Today, the Conservative party human rights commission released its report, entitled, “Unparalleled and Unspeakable: North Korea’s Crimes against Humanity”. I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for her leadership of that inquiry and her tireless campaigning on the issue. I will leave it to her, if she should be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr Streeter, to focus on the findings and recommendations of her report in detail, but I commend the report to the House and hope that the Minister will study it carefully.
Momentum is beginning to grow in other ways as well. The outstanding work of the all-party group on North Korea—if any colleagues present are not members, I encourage them to join—under the chairmanship of Lord Alton of Liverpool, has kept the issue on the agenda in Parliament for the past decade. The work of advocacy organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International; campaigns by groups such as Open Doors and Release International; and the efforts of the international coalition to stop crimes against humanity in North Korea, have helped bring about the attention that is finally being given by the UN to North Korea’s human rights crisis. New organisations, such as the recently launched North Korea Campaign UK and the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea, will help to bring the situation to a new level of public awareness and campaigning.
All those are vital steps to shine a light on the darkest corner of the world and to place North Korea’s human rights crisis where it belongs: at the centre of the international agenda. However, much, much more is needed.
Breaking the information blockade that surrounds North Korea is key to bringing about change, as has already been mentioned. I welcome the steps already undertaken by the UK to promote academic and cultural exchanges and scholarships for North Koreans to study abroad. I also welcome the activities of others, including distribution of information into North Korea via USB sticks, DVDs and other portable devices, and—crucially—radio broadcasts.
As Professor Andrei Lankov argues in his book, “The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia”:
“In order to initiate changes in North Korea, it is necessary to put North Korea’s rulers under pressure from its people and the lower echelons of the elite. Only North Koreans themselves can change North Korea…The only long-term solution, therefore, is to increase pressure for a regime transformation, and the major way to achieve this is to increase North Koreans’ awareness of the outside world. If North Koreans can learn about the existence of attractive and available alternatives to their regimented and impoverished existence, the almost unavoidable result will be the growth of dissatisfaction toward the current administration. This will create domestic pressure for change, and the North Korean government will discover that its legitimacy is waning even among a considerable part of the elite.”
Every tool available should be used to break the information blockade, but there is one that is not currently being used: the BBC World Service. A sustained campaign has developed over the past year or two for the establishment of a BBC Korean-language radio service to broadcast to the Korean peninsula, north and south. An excellent report by the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea, called “An Unmet Need: a Proposal for the BBC to Broadcast a World Service in the Korean Language”, was published in December 2013. The report notes:
“In spite of restrictive media policies, severe punishments and radio jamming operations, changes to the global media environment are gradually impacting media consumption within the DPRK”—
that is, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, although of course it is a state that is neither democratic nor run for its people. The report goes on:
“Today, a surprisingly large percentage of North Koreans can access media devices that are capable of receiving foreign media”.
Intermedia reports that almost half of North Korea’s radio listeners are able to access illegal radios and over a quarter have actively listened to foreign radio broadcasts.
The remit of the BBC Trust sets out as a specific purpose for the World Service that it should
“enable individuals to participate in the global debate on significant international issues.”
A BBC strategy document, “Delivering Creative Future in Global News”, makes it a priority for the World Service to access
“a number of information-poor language markets with a clear need for independent information”.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has touched on an interesting point about the BBC World Service. I believe that one reason why the Foreign Office is reluctant to ask the BBC to broadcast a Korean service is that it underestimates the number of North Koreans who could receive it, but if it looks at the figures, there is a much stronger case than it believes for asking the BBC to broadcast to North Korea.
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right and I agree with him—the evidence available to us shows that despite the restrictions and the regime’s best efforts to stop them, more and more people in North Korea are managing to listen to such broadcasts.
Recently, Stephen Bosworth, the former US ambassador to the Republic of Korea and former US special representative for North Korea policy, said:
“I would like to lend my support to the effort to bring the BBC World Service to North Korea. I believe the interests of the people of North Korea and the rest of the world are best served by opening North Korea to information from the outside. The BBC World Service could clearly play an important role in that process.”
The all-party group on North Korea, the Conservative party human rights commission and the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea, among others, have addressed many of the questions put forward by the BBC and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, particularly on cost-effectiveness, commercial opportunities, availability of shortwave radios in North Korea and availability of transmitters to broadcast. Has the Minister had an opportunity to read “An Unmet Need”, to assess the information provided by various groups in response to BBC and Foreign Office concerns and to review the Government’s position?
Last night, I was e-mailed by one of Radio Free Asia’s correspondents in Washington, and gave a radio interview over the telephone with that station. Given that today’s debate is in the British Parliament, it is a little ironic that perhaps the only broadcast into North Korea to be mentioned today will be one from an American-run radio station, and not a British radio communication.
There are many other concerns; I will briefly highlight some, in the hope that other Members might elaborate on them during the debate. First, there are the severe violations of freedom of religion or belief in North Korea, and particularly the extreme persecution of Christians. There is China’s policy of forced repatriation of North Korean refugees, which returns them to a dire fate and is in breach of international law. Further, there are the desperate humanitarian needs of the people of North Korea and the question of whether the United Kingdom could and should be providing aid. There are also concerns about possible breaches of existing sanctions and the need for more targeted sanctions to prevent the export of North Korean resources produced by forced labour in political prison camps and slave labour in the mining sector, as well as the trade in blood minerals.
Finally, there is a need to develop a much better understanding of how the brutal regime in North Korea works by engaging regularly with North Korean defectors, of whom there are several hundred in the United Kingdom. Last week, one prominent defector, Jang Jin-sung, addressed the all-party group ahead of the launch of his new book, “Dear Leader”. He provided a detailed insight into the centrality of the regime’s rather Orwellian- sounding Organisation and Guidance Department, or OGD. Understanding the key power structures in the North Korean regime is essential if we are to use our levers of influence in the most effective way.
In 2010, The Times published an editorial, headlined “Slave State”, which stated:
“The condition of the people of North Korea ranks among the great tragedies of the past century. The despotism that consigns them to that state is one of its greatest crimes.”
The UN inquiry and the courage of an increasing number of North Korean exiles and international NGOs are at long last beginning to shine a light on those crimes and awaken the conscience of the world. In this House, we have a responsibility to do all we can to ensure that the light shines brighter, the darkness is exposed and the appalling suffering of the North Korean people is brought to an end.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to make a contribution to this debate. I commend the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for his introductory remarks, which set the scene clearly. I also commend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in anticipation of her speech; I know she will make a vast contribution.
It is always good to come along to debates such as this, because we can remember those in other parts of the world who do not have the freedom that we have in this country. North Korea is certainly a country where freedom is in very short supply and life is cheap. Human rights in North Korea simply do not exist: freedom of association, of worship, of movement and even of thought are all denied. Everything in North Korea is controlled and monitored, and life is not at all the same there as it is in our country. Often in my office we make jokes about dictators, but when we think about the dictator in North Korea we are increasingly aware of how blessed we are to live where we live and have the freedom that we have.
As Jong-un was educated in the west there was a brief hope that he would bring a more modern approach to running North Korea, but that hope has been dashed. A US intelligence assessment published in The Wall Street Journal depicted Jong-un as
“a volatile youth with a sadistic streak who may be even more unpredictable than his late father”.
We thought his late father was bad, but when we look at the suffering now it is manifestly even worse. When we discuss North Korea we have an opportunity to remember those who do not have human rights or even the very basics for life—we must be mindful of those people.
In North Korea now, there is to be no modernisation of thought, but simply of warfare, and with the dictator firmly established there are to be no kind of human rights. It is home to the world’s fifth largest army, of 1.2 million soldiers and 8.3 million reservists, and there is a monopoly of state-run media—TV, radio, and the press—that indoctrinates the population with the party’s propaganda. We know of the existence of 14 concentration camps, some of which hold as many as 50,000 prisoners. Some of those people do not even know the crime for which they have been imprisoned, but others know exactly why they are there—it is because of their faith and the fact that they want to tell others of that faith.
The precise number of Christians in North Korea is unknown, but it is estimated that there could be as many as 100,000 or more. Before the communists came to power, numbers were higher but during the Korean war of 1950-53 many fled to South Korea or were martyred in North Korea. Those who remain are forced to hide their faith or face terrible consequences. That is why it is important to make our point today on behalf of those in North Korea.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. This is about our third discussion in recent months about North Korea and, more broadly, human rights. I would have thought that one of the ways in which the United Nations could exert pressure is through China, which has a big influence on North Korea.
Does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that the images and films of prisoners in North Korea and how they are tortured put us in mind of Bosnia when the Muslims were being persecuted? It amazes me that there is not the same publicity and momentum—I am not talking about invading North Korea—that the west exercised at the time of the Bosnian conflict. That seems to be absent in this case. I wonder why. It is very strange.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is hard to understand what is happening in North Korea. We have seen films about the worst happenings in Germany and the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda, which we discussed earlier today, and many other parts of the world, but nothing in the world adds up to what happens in North Korea. That is curious.
I attended an eye-opening event with Hae Woo—given my Northern Irish accent, I am not sure whether my pronunciation is correct; we would say “hay” as a matter of terminology back home, but this is someone’s name. The lady’s name was Hae Woo and she made a valuable contribution. We all had the opportunity to hear her testimony about what it is like to live in North Korea and how important it is to have the freedom she now has in South Korea. She has told the rest of the world.
I was interested in what the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said about the Radio Free Asia programme. I did a couple of interviews on it. I am not sure how my Northern Ireland accent went down in North Korea. I am sure it was challenging for most of them; it is a challenge for people here.
Hae Woo spoke candidly about her horrific experience in a North Korean concentration camp. I spoke to some of the staff in my office and gave them some of the books we had been given on the day. They were illuminating, but hard to read. They told the lady’s story, as well as that of thousands of others who had been beaten, tortured and abused. Those people had had their possessions taken, their children removed and their homes ransacked, all because they had a page from the Bible and were suspected of meeting other Christians.
Sometimes it is hard to understand, given how blessed we are here, what it is like for someone to have no job, no house, no clothes, no family and to be thrown into prison when no one knows where they are and they have no friends. That is reality for those in North Korea.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman reminds me of that day. What I also found chilling was that some people in the state apparatus masqueraded as Christians in the hope of entrapping others, almost as agents provocateurs. They took people off to camps because of their faith. I am sure he agrees that that requires greater international pressure.
Jim Shannon
I think it does. I will come to China later in my speech because I think something can be done. We need participation, encouragement and help from China to make that happen.
My parliamentary aide works with children at Elim church in Newtownards and told them the story of the lady from North Korea. When she said that mums and dads were taken away, the children were amazed. They asked what could be done; that is what we are all asking today, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire made clear. What can Parliament do? One child asked what we could do to help and take care of them, and that is what we are asking the Minister today.
We are fortunate in that the Minister has a clear interest in the matter. We know that from experience and our discussions with him, and we look forward to hearing what hope he can give us as Members of Parliament that we in turn can give our constituents. We have all been inundated with e-mails and correspondence, and we reflect that opinion in the Chamber in the best way we can. North Korea is closed off to the western world and our influence is almost non-existent, but there must be something that the greatest democracy in the world can do. If so, what are we doing to exert influence and to make a difference?
I turn to China. The harsh regime and grinding poverty have forced thousands of North Koreans to try to escape to China. It is estimated that as many as 350,000 North Koreans are in China as illegal immigrants. The Chinese authorities stubbornly uphold their policy of repatriating defectors found in their territory, even though repatriated North Koreans face notoriously harsh treatment and often death. The North Korean authorities allegedly pay Chinese informants to denounce defectors, so defectors in China are forced into hiding and often into the clutches of ruthless individuals who trap them into forced labour or sex work. Can we help these people? We have a duty to try. Can we ensure that aid comes their way to help them start a new life in which they can have their faith and freedom? Can we use our ties and links with China, with whom we have a semblance of a relationship, to make a difference?
I cannot help but think of those Christians in the world who cherish their Bible and see it as their guide, and my mind goes to tales of people in North Korea who shred and burn their Bible after they have memorised it so that they can treasure it in their hearts. A reminder of that is a film, “The Book of Eli”, which I saw the other week; it is similar at the end, when a blind person memorises the Bible.
Some people in North Korea have the memory of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelations. It shocks me that in the modern world some people do not have a Bible, and do not have the opportunity to read it, to worship and to enjoy freedom, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said. Like the child at Elim church in Newtownards who asked whether we can take care of those people, I ask the Minister, “Can we?” We have a responsibility to do so and we must use every avenue to make it happen for those Christians in North Korea who are suffering severe persecution.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
One of the many remarkable meetings that the all-party parliamentary group on North Korea has had with refugees and asylum seekers from that country took place last week, when Mr Jang Jin-sung came to speak to us. He is a former North Korean poet laureate and a counter-intelligence official so his knowledge of the hierarchy of North Korean society gave us an unparalleled insight. He told us that the world never really sees the true North Korea because although there is individualised cult worship of the dear leader, real political power lies with the Organisation and Guidance Department of the Korea Workers’ party. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned that and I commend him on bringing forward this debate.
The OGD apparently controls all chains of command within North Korea, but very few people who have left North Korea are aware of that; of the 26,000 or so who have left, perhaps only a handful have an insight into what we were told last week. There is, of course, no Parliament in North Korea. All laws are prepared by the OGD for signature by the leader. It gives all orders for the military, appoints all high-ranking officials, operates the prison camps, co-ordinates extensive surveillance and even appoints the leader’s own bodyguards. We were informed that at the end of his life, the former leader, Kim Jong-il, was effectively living under house arrest controlled by those very bodyguards. That startling revelation demonstrated to us the frailty of the apparent power of the regime and of this failed state.
Mr Jang told us, in his own words, that the regime is “ruined inside” and that there is effectively a divide in North Korean society between the governing classes and the market classes. We have known for some time that the governing classes will make sure that they and the military are well fed and provided for. What is becoming increasingly apparent is that the rest of the population simply have to fend for themselves. He told us that provision for what are called the market classes has effectively been abandoned by the governing bodies.
Mr Jang confirmed that the market classes can only survive through black-market dealing, and he spoke of the governing classes having “lost control of the market”, saying that there is a façade of power, but the daily currency of survival in North Korea has been converted from loyalty to the dear leader to money. The North Korean regime does all it can to control its people, but it cannot even control the price of an egg. He also told us that no one in the North Korean elite believes that the regime will last for ever. For us, that is good news. That day cannot come soon enough.
Mr Jang encouraged those of us outside North Korea to stop focusing on the regime and to look at what he called the “wedge of hope” within the country. I took the phrase to mean that if the North Korean people in numbers are now beginning to use their individual initiative to survive independently of Government provision through the use of the black market, often using goods illicitly imported from outside the DPRK, surely there is hope that those same people, given information and inspiration from the outside world, could begin individually to appreciate, ultimately understand and finally act on the fact that there is a different and more humane way for a society to live than that offered by their own Government.
Our role surely has to be to increase the size and impact of the wedge of hope in the people’s hearts. One day, change will surely come within North Korea. Kingdoms rise and fall; no despotic regime ultimately endures. Our role and our challenge, bearing in mind the deplorable suffering of the North Korean people, is to do what we can, however slight it may seem, to increase that wedge of hope, so that change comes sooner rather than later—for one day, one month, one year, surely it will come.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech intently and I congratulate her on it. Is it her view that the wedge of hope will be enough to end the regime, or is China’s changing its stance a necessary condition for that?
Fiona Bruce
I think it is very important that our Government and other Governments in the international community press China to alter its approach towards North Korea—in particular, its treatment of asylum seekers. It is appalling that asylum seekers, when they are found in China, are sent back to North Korea for torture, and, in many cases, certain death. It is appalling that women who are sent back, if they are found to be pregnant or are even carrying a babe in their arms, will have to see that child sacrificed. That must change.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her fine speech. Does hope not also come from communication and from hearing and knowing what is out there? Will she join me in urging—it is not necessarily a matter for the Minister—the BBC World Service to establish a Korean radio service broadcast in English to the Korean peninsulas, both north and south, so that they can hear much more about the hope out there?
Fiona Bruce
I certainly will, and I hope to mention that later in my speech, given time.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked what we can do. Well, one thing we can do is speak out in this place, as we are doing today. The very first time I spoke out about North Korea in this Chamber, I was amazed to receive correspondence from Korea. It came from people who knew or were related to people in North Korea—from those living in South Korea who said, “Keep speaking out. We are hearing you here.” Given the increased use of technology to smuggle information into North Korea, through USB sticks and other means of communication, what is now even more encouraging is that our debates in this place can—and I believe, will—reach the hearts, minds and ears of people in North Korea, and they will be encouraged and strengthened to speak and take action. That is one thing we can do.
Mr MacNeil
If people in North Korea are listening to any of these words, it is important that they understand that if regime change comes, they would not be abandoned by other countries. In fact, they would be helped by other countries and could see a manifestly better material life through help from many supportive nations and supportive peoples across the world.
Fiona Bruce
That is exactly the point that I want to come to now. It is clear—I have heard this not only from Mr Jang last week, but from others—that although the regime in North Korea, the North Korean elite, perceive that their state is failing, they simply do not know another way. They do not know the solution to their difficulties. They cannot find a way through to feed their people. They cannot understand, because they have never known it or experienced it, what it means to live in a form of democracy, the like of which we know and must communicate to them in different ways.
Several ways to increase the wedge of hope are outlined in the report published today by the Conservative party human rights commission. I have just passed a copy to the Minister, so I do not expect him to be able to respond in detail to that in the debate, but it is called “Unparalleled and Unspeakable: North Korea’s Crimes Against Humanity”. I encourage Members to read it.
Clearly, I cannot refer to all the report’s recommendations today, but I want to put on the record my thanks to the commission’s deputy chairman, Ben Rogers, for his sterling assistance in the production of the report and for so much of the work that he has done over many years to highlight the human rights atrocities in North Korea.
I believe that we can be encouraged by what has happened in Burma, because that same man, Ben Rogers, worked assiduously for many years to highlight the difficulties that people in Burma suffered, and we have recently seen what has happened in that country. Just a few years ago, many of us might not have hoped for the changes that are occurring there. We must maintain the same degree of hope for the people in North Korea.
Jim Shannon
I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said. Does she also agree that the power of prayer is very important?
Fiona Bruce
I do, and in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question that I referred to earlier, one way we can also provide support is through some of the organisations that go into North Korea; many of them are Christian organisations, such as Open Doors or Christian Solidarity Worldwide. The commission heard from Amnesty International, in a witness session, that support for them by means of food aid will get through to people in North Korea. There are means of reaching North Koreans and those organisations are providing tremendous strength and support for people in North Korea as they travel about and provide aid and information.
I turn back to the commission’s report. It was not its intention to repeat in detail evidence of the human rights violations, because they were already extremely well documented in the UN commission’s report, published earlier this year, by Mr Justice Kirby. As the Conservative party human rights commission’s report states:
“Instead, this brief report aims to serve as a policy document for the Conservative Party, summarising the scale of the challenge”
faced by the international community
“and then focusing on possible ways forward for the United Kingdom in helping to lead the international community’s effort to end the climate of impunity in North Korea, enhance mechanisms for accountability and justice, break the regime’s information blockade, and bring an end to more than half a century of horrific suffering endured by the North Korean people.”
Breaking that information blockade is, as my colleagues have mentioned, one way in which we can provide support. Mr Jang said, interestingly, that,
“this is not just a humane thing it is also a pragmatic thing to do”.
The commission urges the UK Government to continue their efforts while pursuing a critical engagement in the DPRK on questions of human rights on every level. We are also pressing them to continue to invest in academic and cultural exchanges, such as sponsoring the British Council’s English teaching in North Korea. Many escapees have told us they benefited directly from that. Although the British Council has only four people teaching there, it has taught hundreds of North Koreans over the years. In many cases, that has been extremely helpful when people have sought to move on.
Similarly, the report encourages increased investment in developing the skills and education of North Korean refugees in the UK. The country will need leaders who can go back to it when change happens; it will need men and women of courage, insight and vision who have experienced life in a free nation. I think, for example, of one young refugee, Timothy, who has done a little work experience in my office. He grew up in North Korea, but he was orphaned. From the ages of about eight to 14, he virtually lived on the streets. He then managed to escape to China, but unfortunately he was caught, repatriated and tortured. He managed to escape again, and he finally reached this country. He is now studying politics at Salford university.
We need to take care of such people. The UK has about 600 North Korean refugees—the largest diaspora in the world, outside South Korea. We really should increase engagement with them and draw on their knowledge and experience. We could then send communications from them into North Korea, using some of the technology we have these days—smuggled USB sticks, DVDs and other portable devices. Such things can also be used to send over films, newspaper articles and reports from the human rights organisations I mentioned, and information can also be brought back. If we can work more closely with the North Korean diaspora here, we can find another way of breaking the information blockade.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a typically insightful speech. However, the concern most people have when thinking of North Korea is about the lack of hope. Individuals in the regime may be inclined to distance themselves in some way from the leader, but there is a fear of the risks associated with doing anything differently. My hon. Friend speaks positively about the wedge of hope and the things we can do to support the diaspora in this country, but what can we do to support those who are inclined to resist the pressure to conform to the leader’s direction?
Fiona Bruce
I entirely agree that lives are lived in permanent fear. Even before they can read or write, children are taught to fear and worship the regime—that is a terrible mixture in people’s mindset. However, sending information will gradually free their minds. I accept that that is an extremely slow process, but if we do not try, how will these things happen? That is my question. If we do not do these things, people will never know the truth. However, we cannot say we do not know the truth, because the 400-page report from Mr Justice Kirby has told the world of the horrors of this regime, and we must act—we must take what steps we can to address the situation.
I turn now to the many calls made in this debate, and in several others, for the BBC to broadcast into North Korea and, indeed, South Korea. Again, I ask the BBC to consider the issue. A large percentage of North Koreans can now access media devices capable of receiving foreign media, and DVD players, televisions and radios are smuggled into the country. Under the remit of the BBC Trust, one specific purpose of the BBC World Service is to enable
“individuals to participate in the global debate on significant international issues.”
Under the BBC strategy “Delivering Creative Future in Global News”, a priority for the World Service is to access
“a number of information-poor language markets with a clear need for independent information”.
The World Service operating agreement also prioritises audiences
“which have the least access to news”.
Surely, nowhere qualifies more under that criterion than North Korea.
The two objections we have had from the BBC are, first, that
“an insignificant percentage of the population”
would be reached, but that can be discounted. In 2005, 18% of people had listened to a foreign radio. In 2009, the Asia Foundation collated information suggesting that 20% were listening to one. In 2012, InterMedia found that nearly half the respondents from a North Korean defector community owned radios and that,
“many radio listeners…modify fixed-dial radios in order to receive unsanctioned channels.”
The second concern raised about the BBC broadcasting into North Korea was that South Korean regulations would prevent broadcasting from South Korea. However, Voice of America broadcasts its Korean language service from a transmitter in South Korea, and there are other options involving transmitters elsewhere in Asia. Therefore, the commission—this is one of our strongest recommendations—urges the Government and the BBC to reconsider the issue and to invest in establishing a BBC Korean service and in training exiled North Koreans as reporters and producers, as well as to take on other staff positions in such a service.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady has made a fantastic plea for the BBC to be involved, and there is not a dissenting voice anywhere in the room and probably not in Parliament. It is incumbent on people in the BBC to listen to her words and to read them again.
Fiona Bruce
Absolutely. It is incumbent on them to do that. I will close now—you have been extremely indulgent, Mr Streeter—by saying that if the BBC persists in being unwilling to broadcast into Korea, a solution will be found elsewhere. The option of another organisation broadcasting into Korea is being actively discussed. That would involve an independent radio station broadcasting from the UK into the DPRK.
It would be to the BBC’s shame if it did not take a role in righting the injustices experienced by the North Korean people—the injustices experienced by this generation, which are comparable only to the holocaust experienced by our forebears’ generation—and if it did not rise to the challenge that we are putting before it.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to have caught your eye in this important debate, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I also pay sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who clearly showed her passion for this subject in the way she spoke about it. With the Conservative party human rights commission, she has produced a comprehensive report. I participated in some of the hearings, and I congratulate her on the report. I have read every word of it, and it would repay any Member of the House to read from it.
I want to concentrate on human rights in North Korea. Before I do, however, I want to put on record that North Korea is one of the world’s putative nuclear states. It carried out nuclear tests in 2006, 2009 and 2013. Whenever my right hon. Friend the Minister has dealings with any of the five powers in the six-party talks, I would urge him to see whether we can get the talks back on track. In my recent discussions with the Chinese—I was in Beijing last week and met Foreign Office Ministers at Minister of State level—it was clear that they, too, do not want a rogue nuclear state on their doorstep. There is, therefore, good cause to hope that China, which has the most influence of any country on the DPRK, can put some pressure on it to at least prevent it from becoming a nuclear power and deploying ever longer range ballistic missiles, potentially carrying nuclear warheads.
The UN commission of inquiry has been widely quoted today; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton quoted widely from it. One of the most telling quotes from it was from Mr Justice Kirby, the retired and very respected Australian judge who wrote it. Let me quote just one sentence of what he said:
“The gravity, scale, duration and nature of the unspeakable atrocities committed in the country reveal a totalitarian state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.
That is a pretty damning indictment, if ever there was one, of the inhuman treatment that the country metes out. The ordinary citizens of North Korea are sentenced to a slow death, because they do not have enough food. Their life expectancy is probably not beyond their thirties. If they go into one of the camps—and there are between 80,000 and 120,000 political prisoners—they face a quick death sentence, because they are starved there, and work harder; but it is not only that. The appalling thing about North Korea is that if someone commits a crime it is often not only that person, but their children and their children’s children, who are imprisoned. That often applies to those poor people who try to escape the misery across the Chinese border. They are sent back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has said, to appalling conditions in the prison camps. They are routinely tortured and forced to have abortions. People’s babies are routinely slaughtered in front of them and the other inmates of the camp. The regime is truly inhuman.
In an article in the Korea Times the other day Kim Mikyoung said that
“the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is one of the poorest nations, yet one of the proudest; it is one of the most sanctioned states, yet one of the most defiant; it is one of the weakest, yet one of the most resilient.”
Its people are incredibly resilient, considering the treatment that the state metes out to its poor citizens. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton said, the little known Organization and Guidance Department for the Workers Party of Korea is responsible for many aspects of ordinary Koreans’ lives—the prison camps and the re-education that happens in them, the “dear leader’s” guard and the watching of that guard to see who adulates the leader. Such is a state where the citizens spy on each other.
The recommendations of the UN commission are comprehensive and should be implemented in full, including by taking the report to the UN Security Council and referring the DPRK to the International Criminal Court. Along with the report of the commission of inquiry, the report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton produced a number of excellent findings, and I encourage everyone to read it.
I put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister during the urgent question debate obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton on 16 December.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Before the break, I was about to draw attention to the Minister, because in response to a question that I put to him in the debate on 16 December 2013 on the urgent question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, he said:
“It is important that whenever we see a chink of light, we try to widen it to expose to the people of North Korea that there is a better world out there.”—[Official Report, 16 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 482.]
I entirely agree. The report prepared by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has shone a strong light on North Korea, and we must continue to try to change the situation there. The leadership are aware of the current attention. They know that we are on their case. We must now use the report to show the people that there is a better world out there. Knowledge is power. People need knowledge so that they, and we, have the power to change things.
Andrew Selous
On the “knowledge is power” point, does my hon. Friend share my concern that apparently the number of defectors getting out of North Korea has dropped by some 40% since Kim Jong-un became leader? He has increased the number of troops on the Korean-Chinese border, as have the Chinese on the other side, because they understand that knowledge getting out is harmful to them.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is clear that the new, younger leader, Kim Jong-un, is more unpredictable than his predecessors. He is more ruthless. He is stationing more troops on the border to prevent people from getting out. Unfortunately another factor in the figure that my hon. Friend has just given the House is the hardening attitude of the Chinese towards sending people back, which is completely inhuman. We need to say to the Chinese that it is not acceptable.
We have certain tools that allow us to shine this light on the regime, and I would like to discuss briefly three of them. The World Service has been mentioned several times in the debate, and figures have been given for the number of people who could potentially receive it in the DPRK. I have no way of knowing whether those figures are true—perhaps the Minister has reliable figures—but as I said in the debate on the urgent question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, I do not think that the Government can leave the matter completely to the BBC.
As my hon. Friend’s report makes clear on page 19,
“another argument used by the Government is that the BBC is independent and the Government cannot ‘interfere’ or make a decision on this. Yet under the new 2014 Operating Licence for the BBC World Service, the Foreign Secretary retains his decision-making authority over where, why, how and to whom the World Service is broadcast. The Foreign Office is required to agree to the objectives and priorities of the World Service, and thus can influence where, why and to whom to broadcast. Furthermore, in a letter to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee in February 2013, the Foreign Secretary states: ‘I…provide final agreement to any BBC proposal to open a new service.’”
The current operating licence for the BBC World Service, the new 2014 operating licence, a BBC Trust paper in June 2013 and the Foreign Secretary’s own words confirm that any new language service must be agreed between the BBC Trust and the Foreign Secretary. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister not to stand aside and say that that is a matter for the BBC, because I do not believe that it is. I believe that the Foreign Secretary could intervene, and I hope that my right hon. Friend has heard enough pleas this afternoon to convince him to ask his boss, the Foreign Secretary, to do so.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that it is important that the Government take note of the increasing number of Members of Parliament who are calling for that and expressing concern about the human rights atrocities in North Korea? The considerable number of Members in this debate has reflected that, and others regularly join our all-party group. No less than 34 Members came to an open-doors meeting recently, many prompted by cards from their constituents, and 68 have signed early-day motion 1184, which calls on the Government to consider every possible mechanism for accountability for the human rights atrocities in North Korea. Surely that should include consideration of the BBC broadcasting into the country.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend is entirely right. A number of known voices in Parliament have made the case for North Korea for a long time, including Lord Alton, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has referred. I have visited South Korea and looked across the demilitarised zone into North Korea, where I had my photograph taken. The ambassador said, “There you are; you will now be on the files of the North Korean authorities for evermore, and they will know who you are.” That is the sort of regime that we are dealing with. Those of us who have been campaigning on the matter for a long time—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton referred to Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, who has done superb work on this subject—are beginning to find a wider camaraderie with people in both Houses of Parliament who want to campaign on this horrendous issue.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I pay tribute to the fantastic speeches that we have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) referred to the number of people who have signed early-day motions. I am not able to sign early-day motions, but I have been urged by a number of constituents to come here and express my concerns and theirs about human rights in North Korea. Will my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) pay tribute to the many Church groups that have campaigned on the matter, which have encouraged MPs to attend debates such as this and encouraged engagement in the issue?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
There is no doubt about it; the increased interest by a number of Members of Parliament, which has been emphasised by the strong attendance at today’s debate, is in no small part attributable to the work that the Churches are doing. I have already referred to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and the work that it has done.
The second tool that we have in our armoury is the British Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has referred to. The British Council had an excellent programme of training English teachers, but unfortunately when Kim Jong-un and his regime threatened the Foreign Office with the closure of our embassy last year, it had to stop its activities. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could, in his summing up, say something about the British Council and tell us if and when it is likely to be able to resume its activities.
The third tool in our locker is Kaesong. When I stood on the demilitarised zone and looked through the telescope into North Korea, I could see the industrial zone of Kaesong quite clearly. Working in the Kaesong industrial complex is one of the very few activities where both North Korean and South Korean workers can get together. The factories manufacture things that are needed in the south. The North Koreans who work there receive much-needed hard currency from the south, but, more than that, they are able to interact with South Koreans and encounter their ideas about what is going on in South Korea and the rest of the world. The hope is that they will spread those ideas by word of mouth into the rest of North Korea. That is an important tool in our armoury.
Another important tool in our armoury is the fact that there are an increasing number of electronic devices such as radios and mobile phones. Villages on either side of a valley that were previously unable to communicate with each other suddenly find that through the odd one or two people who have mobile phones, they can communicate with each other. That combined with the internet will probably bring down the regime more quickly than almost anything else.
Finally, in the very few minutes that I have left, I would like to say a word or two about China. As I said, I was in China last week with quite senior members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Although they are not prepared at the moment to intervene in condemning the DPRK for its human rights record, it is quite clear that they do not want to see it becoming a nuclear state.
Jim Shannon
One of the things that China could do today, which would not be a big thing for them but would be a big thing for North Koreans, would be to give North Koreans who leave their country safe passage through China. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that would be a massive step forward?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I think that is a very valid point. We made the point to the Chinese that when people had gone to all the difficulties of escaping across the border—by golly, it is difficult, particularly with the number of soldiers now deployed on the rivers along which people escape in winter when they ice over—it is particularly unfortunate that China return those people to the DPRK where they face certain torture and probable death, as well as forced abortions and infanticide. We must continue to discuss those matters with China.
I end where I began. We are talking about one of the most terrible regimes in the world, which commits some of the worst human rights atrocities in the world. It starves its people, and it commits against them all sorts of crimes against humanity, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire has said. That is completely unacceptable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton has demonstrated, increasing numbers of parliamentarians in both Houses of Parliament are paying attention to the issue, and I expect yet more to do so. Let us all work, wherever we can and in our individual ways, to shine a light on this dreadful situation in the hope that we can bring about an improvement in the standard of living and quality of life for the people of North Korea.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. It is difficult to know where to begin talking about the horrors and atrocities in North Korea; as the hon. Gentleman said, the country is certainly in a category of its own. Although we can all unite in condemning the horrors in the country, we are, in fact, trying to identify ways to do something about the situation. I am sure that I am not alone in sometimes feeling a sense of impotence. There is only so much work that can be done in identifying the horrors, and the next step is to see what action can be taken.
We are in a stronger position than previously following the report of the UN commission of inquiry and the recent UN Human Rights Council resolution. I joined organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in supporting calls for the inquiry, not only on a personal level but on behalf of the Labour Front-Bench team, and I welcomed Foreign Office support for international action last year.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the hon. Lady for what she is doing. Does she agree that now that the UN commission of inquiry has been received, and it is so devastating, we should press for it to be forwarded to the UN Security Council and call on the Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court?
Kerry McCarthy
I also congratulate the hon. Lady because she has done a huge amount of work on the matter through the all-party group on North Korea, and she made a powerful speech a moment ago. I will come to her point in a moment; that is one of the steps that should be considered.
The DPRK rejected the commission of inquiry and refused to grant access, but the commission still provided invaluable evidence of life inside the country and in the prison camps, as we have heard. I pay tribute to the members of the inquiry, its secretariat and the witnesses and experts that it heard from. We should reflect especially on the bravery required from the victims who shared their experience with the inquiry. There were 80 witnesses and experts who testified publicly, while 240 people gave confidential interviews. The commission rightly emphasised the duty to protect their safety and the need for member states to provide additional protection measures where necessary. It is imperative that such efforts continue.
The report, as we have heard, provides a comprehensive account of the complete absence of human rights in North Korea. The illustrations submitted to the inquiry provide a graphic impression of the unimaginable torture meted out in the prison camps. The conclusion that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been, and are being, committed by the DPRK, constituting crimes against humanity, demonstrates the clear need for the international community to respond.
Chillingly, the commission warns:
“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a state that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.”
As we heard, the violations include an almost complete denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as of the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information and association. The commission highlighted how the spread of Christianity is considered a particularly serious threat, underlining why the work of organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Open Doors is so important.
The report details how the North Korean state is an all-encompassing indoctrination machine; how state surveillance permeates the private lives of all citizens; how people are punished for watching and listening to foreign broadcasts; and the pervasive state-sponsored discrimination under the songbun system. The gross violations of the right to food and its manipulation as a means of control mean that North Korean citizens are being left to starve. The commission warned that it was particularly concerned about the long-term effects of ongoing chronic malnutrition among children.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as I had to attend a Committee during the earlier part of the debate but still wanted to put my concern on the record. She mentioned the control of information. Does that not indicate the importance of taking steps to ensure that people in North Korea have more access to what is happening in the outside world? We must make sure that they have a true picture of what is going on in their country and elsewhere. That also highlights the importance of debates such as this that keep the British public’s attention on the issue.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, debates such as this are important because if we speak out, our voices do get heard, despite the restrictions in North Korea. I would also echo the points made about the BBC World Service, although I am not going to dwell on that because those points were made comprehensively.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I do not wish to depress the House even more, but does my hon. Friend agree that things are actually getting worse by the day? We now have a situation in which Satan is devouring his children. The regime is slaughtering its own, and there has never been a time when it has been more vital that we promulgate these facts, as we heard at the meeting of the all-party group last week. Who would have thought that matters could get worse? But they have and continue to do so. That is why debates such as this are so vital.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is entirely right. I just mentioned the food situation in North Korea—how do we influence a regime that does not seem to care whether its people starve? What sort of leverage do we have when the issue is not just the repression of people’s freedom of expression and religion and their right to challenge the regime, but the fact that North Korea’s leaders seem perfectly happy to sit back and let their people starve? Things have indeed become much worse. I will come to how, as a matter of absolute priority, we must look at what we can do to try to change the situation.
We also heard from the report about how discrimination against women and girls has resulted in their becoming increasingly vulnerable to trafficking and prostitution. The punishments associated with transgressions are severe and arbitrary, including summary executions, most notably that of Kim Jong-un’s uncle in December last year.
The prison camps are indicative of the North Korean state’s complete rejection of basic human rights and international law. We hear about people being disappeared because of their connection with the Republic of Korea or Christian Churches—they are taken off to political prison camps. It was, I suppose, a small sign that things were not quite as bad as they have been that the commission found that guilt by association is now less frequent, although that is more than compensated for by some of the other atrocities that occur. Nevertheless, although some relatives are still at risk, the commission found that guilt by association is not quite as prevalent as it was previously.
To use the commission’s words, “unspeakable atrocities” are being committed in the camps, including
“deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions, torture, rape and the denial of reproductive rights enforced through punishment, forced abortion and infanticide.”
It estimates that hundreds of thousands of people have died in the camps over the past 50 years, and that between 80,000 and 120,000 political prisoners are currently detained in four camps and being subjected to horrifying treatment.
The report leaves us in no doubt that action from the wider international community is imperative. As the commission stated,
“The fact that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, as a State Member of the United Nations, has for decades pursued policies involving crimes that shock the conscience of humanity raises questions about the inadequacy of the response of the international community.”
It went on to stress:
“The international community must accept its responsibility to protect the people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from crimes against humanity, because the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has manifestly failed to do so.”
We know that that will continue.
The commission’s report must ensure not only that the world’s attention is on the plight of the people of North Korea, but that urgent action is taken. As has already been mentioned, action from China is key because it is one of the few countries that has some leverage on the situation. As the commission stated,
“China pursues a rigorous policy of forcibly repatriating”
North Korean citizens who have managed to flee their country, despite their being refugees in need of, and entitled to, international protection.
China not only fails to respect the principle of non-refoulement; the commission suggests that, in some cases, Chinese officials inform their North Korean counterparts about those they have apprehended. According to the commission, those repatriated are systematically subjected to
“persecution, torture, prolonged arbitrary detention and, in some cases, sexual violence, including during invasive body searches.”
As we have heard, repatriated pregnant women are subjected to forced abortions, while babies born to returned women are often killed. The risk of refoulement, and their fate in North Korea, prevents defectors who manage to get to China from registering their children’s birth in China, denying them access to health services and education. It is estimated that there are 20,000 children born to DPRK women in China. In failing such defectors, China is failing in its international responsibilities, so it is imperative that the international community challenges it.
Andrew Selous
Does the hon. Lady agree that China’s policy is particularly unfortunate given that South Korea would accept all the refugees? If China did not want them, they would not be left in China.
Kerry McCarthy
I entirely agree. China provides some humanitarian assistance to North Korea; one would therefore hope that it had some leverage over the Government there and could persuade them to change their ways.
The hon. Member for Congleton mentioned the fact that one action that could be considered is referral to the International Criminal Court and the adoption of targeted sanctions. Resolution 25/25, passed by the UN Human Rights Council in March, was a welcome first step in taking the report forward, in particular by extending the mandate of the special rapporteur and requesting increased support, including establishing a field-based structure to strengthen monitoring and improve engagement with all states.
However, it was disappointing that 11 countries at the Human Rights Council abstained on the resolution vote, while six—Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, Venezuela, Vietnam and China—voted against it. There is more general concern about the composition of the Human Rights Council. The UK is on the council, but many member states have, shall we say, rather poor human rights records. There is concern about such countries’ failure to respect the special procedure or country-specific mandate holders. It would help if the Minister set out more about what he thinks the Human Rights Council can actually achieve—beyond mere condemnation of the DPRK regime—and how that can be done.
Following the recent universal periodic review, it has been reported that North Korea has actually agreed to consider 185 of the 268 recommendations. However, it has rejected some of them outright, including that it should co-operate with the ICC, end guilt by association, implement the commission’s recommendations, close the prison camps and abolish the songbun system. Critically, the Human Rights Council resolution recommended that the General Assembly submit the report to the Security Council for further action. The Human Rights Council called for the consideration of a referral
“to the appropriate international criminal justice mechanism”,
which would presumably be the ICC. On top of that, it called for consideration of the
“scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for crimes against humanity”.
Will the Minister update us on the Government’s discussions with Security Council members about formally putting the DPRK on the agenda? What sanctions does he think could possibly be effective in targeting the DPRK leadership? Bearing in mind Russia’s and China’s position on the Security Council, what are the prospects and time scales for action and any referral to the ICC?
Now that the commission has reported and the Human Rights Council has passed its resolution, it is crucial that we maintain the momentum and keep the spotlight and pressure on North Korea, to try to secure the co-operation of partners in key positions of influence. It would be so much easier to say that solutions are more easily at hand in other countries, where the UK operates more leverage and where we know that we can, perhaps, achieve more good in a shorter time, but to turn our back on what is happening in DPRK, just because it is a difficult case and the solutions do not immediately present themselves, would be morally wrong. We simply should not contemplate that.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; she has been generous in giving way.
The approximately 600 people from the North Korean diaspora in this country have not been mentioned so far. Could we not harness them and perhaps ask the BBC to ask them to help with some editorial work on programmes broadcast into Korea? They would surely want to help their families still left in the country.
Kerry McCarthy
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. What always has to be weighed up is whether such a move would make life easier or worse for the people in the country. People in the country know how dreadful the situation is there. People from the diaspora community here would, obviously, need to highlight that to win over international opinion, ensuring that this matter is firmly on the political agenda. I am not so sure, although I have only just heard the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, what the impact would be of such footage being displayed in North Korea. There is a particular danger of measures being taken against people’s relatives who are still in the country. We have to be slightly worried about that.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Lady gives way, she might like to consider that we are eating into the Minister’s time.
Stephen Pound
As my hon. Friend is aware, the North Korean embassy is in my borough of Ealing. I have tried to work with some of the North Korean diaspora in west London, to mount some sort of protest so that people can hear an alternative voice. I have to say to her that they are terrified. The crime of guilt by association throughout the family is so corrosive that, sadly and tragically, they will not dare to raise their heads above the parapet.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend obviously speaks from experience, having talked to the diaspora about this point.
I conclude with the words of the UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, who has warned that in looking at what was happening in the DPRK,
“insufficient attention was being paid to the kind of horrific and sustained human rights violations”
that were going on there. Her conclusion was that
“there can no longer be any excuses”
for ignoring that.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to his work, and that of the all-party group on North Korea, in raising the profile of human rights issues in DPRK and seeking to give North Koreans, wherever they are, a voice. I also thank the Conservative party human rights commission for the report it released earlier today, called “Unparalleled and Unspeakable”, which makes harrowing reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), as I have done before, on her work in this respect.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to Church groups, non-governmental organisations and fellow parliamentarians for continuing to raise this issue and shining some light, as I have said before, on this dark, dark place.
The issue of human rights in North Korea has occupied a great deal of my time. I discussed it only yesterday with our ambassador to Pyongyang, who will also meet the all-party group next week. As I have said before to this House, and in two written ministerial statements in February and March respectively, I believe that the situation in North Korea is without equal in its scale and brutality. No one who has read Lord Alton’s book, “Building Bridges”, can fail to be moved by the suffering of North Korea’s people, or to recognise the urgent need to end this suffering.
Of course, the Government also have wider objectives in DPRK. We remain deeply concerned about the development of nuclear and ballistic missile programmes pursued in wilful disregard of UN Security Council resolutions. The DPRK’s behaviour poses a threat to regional stability and to the global non-proliferation regime, and its willingness to sell conventional arms to anyone who will pay fuels conflict around the world. Nevertheless, we have not allowed this to distract us from challenging the DPRK on its human rights record.
The UK played an active role in supporting the commission of inquiry, hosting a visit that allowed DPRK refugees in the UK to provide evidence to it. I myself met Justice Kirby on that visit. It is deeply regrettable that he has been subjected to personal abuse from the regime in Pyongyang. Following the commission’s report in February, I issued a statement welcoming the spotlight it shone on appalling human rights violations and called upon the DPRK Government to address them urgently.
We worked with the EU, Japan and others to ensure that the UN Human Rights Council adopted a strong resolution, recommending that the commission’s report be forwarded to the UN Security Council for consideration of appropriate action, including referral to an appropriate international justice mechanism. I have made it clear that, ultimately, the UK sees the International Criminal Court as the most appropriate option for this.
We took a similarly strong position in New York last month, when the commission gave an informal briefing to UN Security Council members—the first time members of the Security Council have ever considered DPRK human rights—although both China and Russia were notable for their absence. Again, we took a tough line at the DPRK’s universal periodic review on 1 May, using our role as a member of the troika to counter any exaggeration of DPRK engagement with the review’s recommendations.
We will continue to keep the spotlight on North Korea: when the DPRK special rapporteur, Marzuki Darusman, presents his report to the Human Rights Council in June; when Ministers meet at the UN General Assembly in September; and through a tough UN General Assembly resolution in the autumn.
With an UNGA resolution behind us, we could work with like-minded partners to gather the nine votes necessary to put DPRK human rights on the Security Council’s agenda, but we are realistic about the prospects for holding individuals to account before an international justice mechanism, at least in the short term, because the DPRK is not a signatory to the Rome statute and a referral to the International Criminal Court requires a UN Security Council resolution, as would the creation of an ad hoc tribunal. We expect both would be blocked by China and Russia. However, that does not mean that we should give up. We will continue to work to change the position of those members of the international community—and there are too many of them—who will not condemn the DPRK’s human rights record. The DPRK’s response to the commission of inquiry’s report shows it is sensitive to international criticism, so we will ensure there is no let-up. We all have a part to play in that.
We will also pursue another of the commission’s recommendations, endorsed by the Human Rights Council, which is the creation of a new body to continue the commission’s work of documenting human rights violations, so that when conditions allow for criminal investigations, as they surely will, there will be up-to-date, credible evidence for prosecutors.
Alongside our efforts to ensure that DPRK human rights remain high on the international agenda, the UK will continue to use our policy of critical engagement to raise our concerns directly with the North Korean authorities. Critical engagement means robust exchanges that leave our DPRK contacts in no doubt about our views, not least about their appalling human rights violations. It means raising specific cases, like the 33 people reportedly sentenced to death for alleged contact with Kim Jong-uk, a South Korean national who entered the DPRK for missionary purposes and has been convicted on charges of espionage. It means reminding the DPRK that, in the modern world, even it cannot keep its misdeeds hidden and that, if the rest of the world really is wrong about its political prison camps—its gulags—it has the means to disprove the claims by providing access to independent observers. Those we speak to may be able to do no more than repeat standard lines, but what we say is repeated up the chain to those with real power. We are expanding our engagement, but we are doing so cautiously, not least because we do not want to give the impression of rewarding the DPRK when there is nothing to reward.
For example, we took an important step earlier this year when we accredited a non-resident defence attaché to Pyongyang and gave the DPRK attaché in Moscow similar status. That process is opening up new opportunities for engagement with a different part of the DPRK system, opaque though that system may be. We have also provided training to improve DPRK officials’ understanding of international economic standards. Also, through our contacts with NGOs, the all-party group on North Korea and DPRK refugees, we are ready to consider how we can support others who want to engage directly with the DPRK.
Critical engagement means finding ways to inform DPRK citizens, especially officials and others with influence, about the UK and its values, so that they recognise the benefits of working with the outside world rather than remaining isolated. This is a policy aimed at long-term, incremental change. We are honest enough to acknowledge that nothing the UK says or does will lead to any improvement in the immediate future.
However, we have a responsibility to use our embassy in Pyongyang to do the things that many of our partners cannot do, so as to exploit what the US special envoy for human rights in the DPRK, Ambassador Bob King, described to me in a meeting we had in London last week as our “advantage”, and to take forward the commission of inquiry’s recommendation that states and civil society organisations foster opportunities for dialogue and contact in areas such as culture, good governance and economic development.
For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, through the British Council and educational immersion programmes, we have provided thousands of North Koreans with their first access to a foreigner and an understanding of British culture and values. Sustained engagement by the UK and other European countries, and by NGOs, has resulted in modest improvements in the treatment of disabled people, with a particular boost being given by the participation for the first time of a DPRK athlete in the Paralympic games when they were held in London in 2012. I met that athlete myself.
Several Members from all parties have again raised—quite rightly—the introduction of a BBC World Service Korean-language programme, which would be a further way for us to inform DPRK citizens about the outside world. As hon. Members know, and must accept, the BBC World Service is operationally, managerially and editorially independent. Nevertheless, we kept in close contact with it during its review last year, which we believe to have been a thorough consideration of all the options. Although the World Service board concluded that it was not currently possible to offer a meaningful and cost-effective Korean-language service, it has undertaken to keep that decision under review. We have passed on to the BBC the report from the European Alliance for Human Rights in North Korea, “An Unmet Need”. We understand that the BBC will complete its response to the report in the next few weeks. We will continue to engage with the BBC and bring to its attention any changes in circumstances that might affect its assessment of the viability of a Korean-language service. As hon. Members have already said, the Foreign Secretary has to agree to new BBC World Service programmes. However, it is rightly and properly for the BBC itself to make proposals to him in the first instance. That may just sound like a sequencing issue, but it is an important distinction and one that Members must respect.
Many other issues were raised in the debate, but alas, in my remaining minute I do not have time to address them. Let me conclude by reiterating the Government’s desire, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, to see concrete progress on alleviating the appalling human rights situation in North Korea, on ending the climate of impunity and on bringing those responsible to account. I would just say that—
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that our time has gone; we must move on to our next debate.
Local Plans
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
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter.
I am delighted to have secured this debate today on a vital issue for my constituents. As I will discuss shortly, the proposed allocation of safeguarded land by the local authority in my area is causing profound concern among many of my constituents.
Despite the transformative impact that it has on the nation’s countryside, the term “safeguarded land” appears only three times in the national planning policy framework; all three references are in paragraph 85. This somewhat confusing phrase is first used when the boundaries of a green belt are defined. Local planning authorities should
“where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period”.
Crucially, the NPPF states that local authorities should safeguard land only “where necessary”. Therefore, it is clearly not a requirement that land should be safeguarded for development, despite some local authorities being convinced otherwise.
I myself could not make that point any better than the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), did in a previous Westminster Hall debate. He said that,
“there is nothing in the Localism Act 2011, in the NPPF or in any aspect of Government planning policy that requires someone to plan beyond 15 years. So, anybody who is suggesting that there is any requirement to safeguard land or wrap it up in wrapping paper and ribbons for the future development between 2030 and 2050 is getting it wrong. There is no reason for it and my hon. Friend can knock that suggestion straight back to wherever it came from.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 193WH.]
I can entirely appreciate the rationale behind allowing local authorities the option—I stress the word “option”—to “safeguard land”. However, I am deeply concerned that this policy is being abused by certain local authorities in an effort to undermine the permanence of the green belt, which, as we all know, underpins this country’s entire planning system.
In order to illustrate that point, I will refer to a specific example of what is currently happening in my constituency. The City of York council is now just over a year into the process of formulating and adopting a local plan. When the council announced its initial proposals this time last year, I was contacted by hundreds of constituents who were horrified at the sheer scale of the development being proposed, and at the amount of green-belt land that would be lost for ever as a result. The initial draft of the local plan proposed 22,000 new homes during the 15-year life of the plan, including 16,000 new homes on approximately 1,400 acres of what is currently York’s established green belt. Not content with fundamentally altering the nature of York, which is a historic cathedral city, the council proposed to encircle the city with up to 40 wind farms and 80 pitches for Travellers and show people, all of which would be constructed on the green belt.
For good measure, the council then decided to safeguard a further 1,000 acres of green-belt land for future development. In the past few weeks, it has moved to the next stage of adopting its local plan and it has published a “Further Sites” document that contains proposals for new developments and revised boundaries. While the council’s revisions have resulted in recommendations to decrease some of the existing safeguarded allocations, the new safeguarded sites mean that the council is proposing a net increase of 162 acres of safeguarded land, which is land taken out of the green belt. That flies in the face of opposition from the rural communities surrounding York in my constituency which, quite frankly, are being ignored.
Some may wonder why that is of such concern to many of my constituents, given that safeguarded land is not intended for development in the immediate future. Indeed, paragraph 85 of the national planning policy framework states that local authorities should
“make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time.”
My concern, however, is that once land has been removed from the green belt, it is effectively lost, gone for ever as development is practically guaranteed to occur on the site at some point in future. Although local authorities are encouraged to make it clear that safeguarded land is not currently available for development, I fear that, sadly, some weak-willed local authorities may sacrifice the long-term interests of local residents for short-term gain by permitting development ahead of schedule.
Again, there is an example in my constituency. I need only point to one of the council’s most recent proposals that is causing anxiety among constituents in the village of Earswick. In the new proposal for a 220-acre block of safeguarded land to the east of the village, which would see the village triple in size, the council recommends:
“To include this site as safeguarded land within the Local Plan. This reflects concerns over access and the creation of a sustainable neighbourhood.”
That seems innocent, but the local plan goes on to state:
“If these concerns can be overcome part of this land could potentially be considered as an allocation for years 1-15 of the Plan.”
The proposal has only just been announced, and already the council is trying to work out how it can develop the land ahead of schedule. It is inexplicable how, if there are already concerns on sustainability and access, the site can be proposed for long-term future development, let alone for construction within the 15-year plan period.
The crux of the problem is contained in paragraph 85 of the national planning policy framework:
“Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development”.
My understanding is that, once adopted, a local plan must be reviewed every five years. Such reviews provide local authorities with endless opportunities to revise existing site boundaries, propose safeguarded land for development and allocate further land for future expansion.
In short, promises to local residents can easily be broken. The five-year local plan review also effectively removes the local authority’s need to safeguard land in the first place. Why should local authorities plan for development beyond the 15-year life of the plan when there is no means of accurately identifying the community’s needs that far in the future? After all, local plans are supposed to be supported by a robust evidence base. I fail to see how cast-iron evidence detailing the housing and employment needs in 20 to 30 years’ time can be achieved. A far more appropriate course of action is to continue reassessing the housing requirements of our local communities throughout the plan’s life and address additional need as and when it arises. That pragmatic and common-sense alternative avoids the risk of unnecessarily concreting over thousands of acres of green-belt land.
I call on City of York council to remove the completely pointless allocations of safeguarded land from its draft local plan before it progresses any further. I strongly believe that my constituents should not be forced to live under the shadow of these needless development proposals on their doorstep. It is only right and proper that the council should reflect on the concern it has caused in so many communities on the outskirts of York.
If it is the case that safeguarded land is not a requirement for any local authority, the Government should be doing more to communicate that message to local authorities. There clearly remains some confusion about the nature of safeguarded land, what it is for and what its position within the local plan process should be. If we are to achieve a coherent and joined-up series of local plans across the country that promotes sustainable development while protecting green-belt land, there must be absolutely no confusion about what is required in the plans.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of highlighting the concerns in his local area, where the Labour-run City of York council is using the neighbourhood plan possibly to build on green-belt land. Does he agree that it may be a good idea to name and shame councils nationally by publishing what they are doing with their plans and highlighting the councils that are putting green-belt land at risk?
Julian Sturdy
I thank my hon. Friend for his timely intervention. He is right that this is of such public importance that there is no harm in putting such information into the public domain. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say. For anything such as this, having more information out there means that people can make informed decisions. That is part of the problem with safeguarded land, because people do not fully understand it. The confusion means that people are not participating in the consultation process of my local authority in York.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of safeguarded land. In my area, Labour-run Kirklees council has provisional open land, and our local plan is probably two years from completion. I have communities in Upperthong, Meltham, Linthwaite, Netherthong and Lindley whose local wishes are being steamrollered by housing developments in areas that, to all intents and purposes, are green belt. I agree with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). Does my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) agree that councils need to provide more detail on where their local plans are and to use more accurate designations so that things such as safeguarded land and provisional open land are either green-belt or development land? Such land is currently between the two.
Julian Sturdy
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know is a sturdy campaigner in his constituency. As I said earlier, it is about having clear definitions so that the public at large are aware of what local authorities propose. Different local authorities propose different things in their local plans. My local authority in York proposes something that I think is fundamentally wrong for our great city. We need to ensure that there is clarity in the process so that everyone can make an informed choice and decision and take part in this important public consultation period as local authorities put together their local plans for the next 15 years.
The Minister may recall that in a debate I secured on York’s green belt this time last year, I called on the Government to reconsider the terminology used for safeguarded land due to the confusion it causes. When the council’s local plan was first announced, many of my constituents were wrongly under the impression that these massive blocks of land were safeguarded from development, rather than safeguarded for development. The problem clearly still exists in many parts of my constituency, where the reality of the proposals has yet to sink in fully. Although I will continue to do my best to ensure that no one is under any illusion as to what “safeguarded land” really is and what City of York council intends to do with it, I urge the Government to review the terminology to prevent such confusion limiting community involvement in challenging unsustainable development proposals.
If we truly want our local communities to have a greater say on planning and development policies as part of the Government’s wider commitment to localism, we must ensure that our constituents are equipped with the information they need to take on that role, rather than isolating them from the process by using unhelpful jargon. My understanding is that, before the introduction of the national planning policy framework, safeguarded land was known as reserved land, which is a much more appropriate name. I hope the Minister will reconsider the terminology.
Finally, I will reflect on the Opposition’s deeply flawed planning policy and what it might mean for our countryside if they were ever to put that policy into practice. My fear is that the Labour-run City of York council’s draft local plan and its emphasis on construction at the expense of any other considerations, such as the green belt and sustainability—perfectly illustrated by the vast amount of safeguarded land put aside in that plan—is a clear indication of what is to come nationally if Labour is elected to power in 2015. I was absolutely aghast to learn that York council has signed up our historic cathedral city to be one of Labour’s “right to grow” cities. We can be in little doubt that under a Labour Government the beautiful countryside surrounding York will be swallowed up by unrestricted development, and the legitimate concerns and protests of the surrounding communities will, I fear, be cast aside. I have no qualms in saying that localism, which has been one of the Government’s defining principles and has provided the inspiration behind an incredibly successful programme of reforms, is under great threat.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these important issues on safeguarded land in local plans on behalf of my constituents. I reiterate my calls for the withdrawal of safeguarded allocations from York’s draft plan and for a more pragmatic approach to long-term development in York. I also call on the Government to do all they can to ensure that all local authorities are fully aware that safeguarded land is not a requirement under the NPPF. At the same time, I would be pleased to hear the Minister comment on whether the Government will reconsider the terminology used for safeguarded land. That terminology is so important, and it is misleading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I fear that we might be interrupted by the Division bell, so I will try to address the points raised so quickly that we might sneak in under the wire, although I am not entirely confident that I can achieve that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) on securing this debate on a matter of intense importance to his constituents. He has raised the matter with me in debates such as this, in the Division Lobby, in the cafeterias, in the Tea Room and on every opportunity he has had. I have absolutely no doubt of the importance of the matter to his constituents or of his desire to represent them fully in the process of producing an acceptable local plan for York. If I may—I hope he will understand—I will not make any reference to the York plan or the particular issues relating to York, because it would be improper for me to do so. I hope that by talking about the general policy issues, it might be possible for him to take some comfort and some information for the benefit of his communities.
The green belt and the protection of green-belt land are of enormous importance to the Government. That is why the national planning policy framework has repeated in very clear terms the very high levels of protection that apply to green-belt land. I can state clearly that there has never been a time when the protections of green-belt land have been clearer or more explicit in national policy than now.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I want to ask the Minister about the best and most versatile agricultural land being specifically singled out for extra protection. We have a big issue in Bristol with the plans to tarmac over grade 1 agricultural land. Is it not important that we protect the best soil for growing food, rather than use it for other purposes? It simply cannot be replaced elsewhere.
Nick Boles
The hon. Lady has singled out another category of land where the preservation of current use is given great priority—the highest quality agricultural land. The national planning policy framework is clear that, to the extent that greenfield land has to be allocated for development—unfortunately, some does—less high quality agricultural land should be preferred and that grade 1 agricultural land, which is the highest quality, should be preserved for agriculture where at all possible.
To return to green-belt protections, the national planning policy framework is clear on the importance of those protections, the permanence of green-belt land and its role in preserving the openness of the countryside and in preventing settlements from merging.
Chris Skidmore
I want to reiterate what the Minister is saying about the green belt for my constituency of Kingswood. Before the 2010 general election, there were several applications to build on green-belt land. Since 2010, there has not been a single application to build on the green belt in Kingswood. It is clear that the NPPF is working well. I would, however, like the Minister’s comments on the possibility of a future Government’s “right to grow” policy, which would be disastrous for our local area. It would be the greatest threat to the green belt in 30 years if Bristol was allowed to ride roughshod over the wishes of south Gloucestershire residents.
Nick Boles
This Government’s policy is clear: we want to achieve locally arrived at, co-operative solutions to difficult problems, rather than having top-down Government imposition of solutions or one authority being able to ride roughshod over another. Everyone in our communities has a right to a voice, but that does not mean that any of us can entirely abdicate responsibility for difficult decisions, such as fulfilling the housing needs of future generations. We all deserve to have our voices heard and we all deserve to be part of that solution. We are keen to ensure that, so far as possible, the future development needs of our country are met without threatening the protection of the green belt, of grade 1 agricultural land and of our most beautiful countryside with other designations.
That said, it has always been the case—there is no change in this—that local authorities can revise their green-belt boundaries through a local plan process involving intense consultation with local people. There are a number of communities around the country that are doing just that. It is painful and difficult, and it is right that it happens through an intensely transparent, open and democratic process that takes into account all the opinions expressed by all the different communities affected.
When it does that exercise, the local authority has to pass a very high test: it has to be able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justify taking a particular site out of the green belt or redrawing a green-belt boundary, perhaps to swap land currently in the green belt for land that is not, but is of greater environmental importance. Those are the kinds of arguments that local authorities need to bring forward and the kinds of evidence they need to provide to satisfy a planning inspector that any such proposal is reasonable. I do not criticise any council that is going down that road, because it is right that it, as the duly elected local authority, should be able to. The local authority must, however, go openly and transparently into that process with evidence and after a great deal of consultation.
I turn to the particular issue of safeguarded land. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer that it is an often misunderstood concept. I have to confess that for several months at the beginning of my time in this post, I, too, was somewhat confused about whether it was “safeguarded for” or “safeguarded from”. He makes a good point about the terminology being—it is not deliberate—rather baffling to people. “Safeguarded” seems to suggest protection, rather than an allocation for future development needs.
I commit to my hon. Friend that we will go away and look at the simple question of the terminology and whether there could be better wording. When the national planning policy framework is reviewed, whether we can better clarify that wording will be on the agenda. The concept of safeguarded land as land that is reserved, as he put it, for the possibility of future development needs beyond the life of the plan being laid out has a good justification in some cases. It has a good justification for the following reason: if future development needs are likely to require further difficult choices about some sites in the green belt, it is better to be clear that certain sites might some day have to have their status reviewed, than to have the entire green belt under some abstract possible future threat.
The reason behind the safeguarding terminology is the idea that by clarifying where the future might lead it is made clear that there are some permanently protected places. In some sense, therefore, more reassurance is gained than uncertainty created about what is being protected for ever.
My hon. Friend is completely right, however, that safeguarding is not a requirement for every local authority with green-belt land. It is something that it can choose to do, but only if necessary. If the plan that it puts forward has provisions to meet housing needs in full and if other sites are available for potential future development beyond the life of the plan, it may well be that safeguarding land is unnecessary. He has asked me before, and I have been happy to confirm, that while we want all communities to embrace growth, a vaulting ambition is not a sufficient justification for threatening protected land. Need is an important factor and can be a contributor to the exceptional circumstances that might justify some potential revision of a site’s protected status. Ambition and the desire to grow faster than one’s neighbours or perhaps to build a small empire is not a sufficient justification for putting protections at risk. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it is only if it is necessary that an authority should consider the possibility of designating some safeguarded land.
Given that local authorities must act carefully and with evidence; that safeguarding is not mandatory and authorities should use it only if necessary; that we are happy to examine the terminology to clarify that such land is not safeguarded for ever and is reserved because of an evidence base for potential future need; and that the rest of the green belt is not subject to such possibilities, I hope that my hon. Friend will have something to take back to his constituents.
GP Services (Tower Hamlets)
(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for affording me the opportunity to hold this debate, to the Minister for being here to listen and respond and to my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for taking an interest and supporting the debate.
My remarks are designed to defend Tower Hamlets GP services. I am a great admirer of all that they have achieved, especially over the past 15 years. I called for this debate for three reasons. The first is to find out more about the nature of the problem facing GP services in Tower Hamlets. The second is to determine whether the Government accept that there is a problem. The third is, hopefully, to identify a solution.
The picture is confused and many aspects must be considered, but the real concern is that primary care budgets are being cut, and not only in Tower Hamlets. In response to my written question about average annual changes to GP income in Tower Hamlets, the Minister stated that there would be
“a decrease of £184,000 spread across 21 GMS practices.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2014; Vol. 580, c. 126W.]
However, The Guardian has reported that the Jubilee Street practice alone
“will be down £77,263 by the end of 2014-15”
and that it had “already lost £30,000 QOF”—quality and outcomes framework—
“income last year and will lose its £219,508 a year MPIG allocation incrementally over the next seven years—the accumulated loss due to MPIG alone amounting to over £903,000.”
The figures do not add up.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
As well as the Jubilee Street surgery, four other practices in Tower Hamlets are reported to be part of the 98 surgeries facing closure, but we do not know where they are. Will the Minister commit to publish a list of those surgeries and to place that list in the House of Commons Library?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking the Minister that question and look forward to his response.
The Jubilee Street and St Katharine Docks practices are the two main affected surgeries in my constituency. They are professional, efficient and well-loved and respected by patients. Jubilee Street says that if its proposals to solve the dilemma are not addressed and no agreement is reached, it will have to give notice of closure by October this year.
Today, I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), my colleagues in the shadow health team, on a visit to Jubilee Street to see first hand the problem. At the same time, we launched Labour’s NHS pledge on GP appointments within 48 hours, which I am sure the Minister has noted. What is causing the problem? I will be grateful for the Minister’s views. Is it the shift from deprivation indices to age in the new allocation funding formula from 2012? Is it the elimination of a percentage of the QOF indicators? Is it the seven-year phase out of the minimum income practice guarantee?
Jim Fitzpatrick
I had just asked the Minister three questions relating to what he thinks might be causing the problems confronting our GP practices. The fourth is whether it is because of the range of different contracts negotiated over the past decade, awarding different levels of funding for numbers of patients to different practices; and the fifth is whether it is because there is a shift of funding away from primary care, and, if so, where the money is going. Some 90% of NHS contact with patients is through primary care, but it receives less than 10% of the NHS spend, a point I will come back to later.
I would also be grateful if the Minister indicated who makes the decisions. Practices, in discussion with the local clinical commissioning group and NHS England, have been unable to identify exactly who determines the funding levels. Obviously, it is NHS England that implements ministerial policy, which is why I have an outstanding request to speak to the Minister responsible, who I understand is the noble Earl Howe. I have briefly mentioned that request to the Minister, who kindly said that he would pass on the message and reinforce the request that we have made directly to his office. I would like to have that meeting, and would be accompanied by clinicians and practice managers from Tower Hamlets to put the case.
Tower Hamlets primary care has much to be proud of in the past 15 years; at one point it was the fastest improving primary care trust in the UK. Practices such as Jubilee Street have cupboards full of awards. When I was first elected in 1997, complaints about NHS services and GP practices were numerous and regular, but they disappeared due to the investment by the Labour Government over many years and the dedication and professionalism of clinicians and staff in primary and secondary care.
My own GP practice in Ettrick street on the Aberfeldy estate in E14 is a great example of that first-class service and improvement; I thought that I had better mention it, because if the staff there knew that I was complimenting other practices but left out Dr Phillip Bennett-Richards, Dr Sarah Pitkanen and their colleagues, they would be mightily disappointed.
The local worry is that all that is about to change. Not only have Labour stalwarts such as London assembly member John Biggs—our mayoral candidate—and Councillor Rachael Saunders been on the issue, but local Conservative councillors have been expressing concerns, so the issue is not party political in that sense. I attended a meeting last week at the Mile End hospital with nearly 100 people and many GPs in attendance. I have had numerous e-mails from constituents concerned about what is going on, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow has, too. There are petitions with hundreds and hundreds of signatures springing up all over Tower Hamlets.
All that is against the background of increased pressure. The British Medical Association has said:
“It is estimated that 340 million consultations are undertaken every year. This is up 40 million since 2008.”
As I mentioned, it also said:
“Over 90% of all contacts with the NHS occur in general practice.”
The then-chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Dr Clare Gerada, called for
“an urgent increase in general practice’s share of the NHS budget from 9% to 10% so that 10,000 more GPs could be hired, in order to make GPs’ work loads sustainable.”
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a borough such as Tower Hamlets, with high levels of health inequalities, the fact that people cannot get GP appointments for days on end is scandalous? It will devastate people’s lives further and actually cost more, particularly by putting pressure on accident and emergency services while we are having an A and E crisis.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister also agrees that if we can treat people in general practice and prevent them from going to A and E, that is a much more efficient use of NHS resources. Her point is valid.
The House of Commons Library has produced for me a table of data on GP funding, which
“shows a shift on the share of funding for general practice from 10% in 2005-06 to 8.3% in 2012-13. The real terms change in spending over the past three years shows a fall of £432 million”.
At the same time, there has been an equivalent
“annual percentage decrease of 2.1% per year”
in GPs’ salaries through the same period.
So there we have it. There has been a 40 million increase in appointments but cuts in the share of the NHS budget; a significant real-terms fall in salaries; huge variation in funding at local level; and crises affecting many local practices in my constituency—some looking at closure, which would be a disaster for some of the most vulnerable people in our country.
I want not just to return to the Jubilee Street practice but to take the issue wider. The NHS deputy head of primary care for north central and east London, Rylla Baker, recently wrote:
“The situation has, unfortunately, developed further and we met with the Jubilee street practice earlier this week. Although the situation with the loss of MPIG”—
the minimum practice income guarantee—
“is, for most practices manageable, when the practices take into account other changes in funding that impact on them, the cumulative impact is significantly greater and practices such as Jubilee Street have said that if there is no mitigation against the loss the practice will not be viable… I have copied in Neil Roberts, Head of Primary Care for North Central and East London and Jane Milligan from the CCG as discussions are ongoing about the best way forward. It is also relevant to point out that this is an issue that is not limited to Tower Hamlets.”
We are hearing of numbers of practices in Hackney and Newham, two other impoverished boroughs, that are facing similar problems.
The Royal College of General Practitioners has said:
“In total, the phasing out of a key NHS funding stream called the Minimum Practice Income Guarantee…could affect a total 1,700 practices with the care of 12.2 m patients potentially under serious threat.”
I know that the Minister is deputising for his colleague Earl Howe—that is why I would like a face-to-face meeting with Earl Howe, or indeed with the Secretary of State—but I am keen to hear his response to the points I have raised. I am sure he has some information and data for us.
In Tower Hamlets, we have some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom. There is the lowest life expectancy, on average, of anywhere in the UK. It is estimated that between 10% and 12% of residents are not registered on GP lists. Now, this crisis is coming to a head. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I look forward more to a proper meeting with Earl Howe or with the Secretary of State, and I look forward most to arriving at a solution for the patients, the staff and the clinicians, so that we can protect and continue to provide first-class primary care services in Tower Hamlets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for what I believe is now the third time, and to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) not only on securing the debate but on his advocacy on behalf of local patients. We have discussed that before during meetings in my office in the Department on other issues. I am sure that my noble Friend Earl Howe will be happy to meet him, and I extend that invitation on my noble Friend’s behalf.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I apologise for intervening so early, but I do not remember having any meetings with the Minister in his office on any subject. I would not want to mislead the House, or for people to think that we had held meetings in which I had not raised this issue.
Dr Poulter
A congregation of MPs from London came to see me and I believed that the hon. Gentleman had been there, but I am obviously mistaken. I apologise for that mistake, but I can recall similar conversations in the past during meetings with other MPs from other parts of the country, in which we talked about not just GP services but other local health care services of a similar nature. During those meetings there was advocacy of similar strength to that which we have heard today.
Indeed, a previous debate in Westminster Hall, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), focused on the impact of the minimum practice income guarantee changes on more rural practices in his constituency. The topic has come to the fore for many hon. Members, who I know will wish to discuss it further with the relevant Minister. I therefore want to put on record a formal invitation to come and see my noble Friend Earl Howe to discuss the subject further at some point after this debate.
It may be helpful if I outline why the minimum practice income guarantee was set up in the first place and why it is important to change the payment structure for general practice. The minimum practice income guarantee is a top-up payment to some general medical services—GMS—practices. It was introduced as part of the 2004 GP contract to smooth transition to what were then new funding arrangements, so it is now 10 years out of date. Last year, we announced that the minimum practice income guarantee will start to be phased out from April 2014. We consider minimum practice income guarantee payments to be inequitable because under the system, two surgeries in the same area serving similar populations may be paid different amounts of money per registered patient.
The MPIG will be phased out over a seven-year period, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will know. We are phasing it out to make sure that there is more equity between what different practices in comparable areas receive per patient, and that funding follows the patient more accurately, rather than the practice. I am sure we can all sign up to that in principle. The payments will be phased out gradually with the overall intention that the funding for GP practices will be properly matched to the number of patients they serve and the health needs of the local population.
The money released by phasing out the MPIG will be reinvested in the basic payments made to all general medical services practices. Those payments are based on numbers of patients and key determinants of practice work load such as patients’ ages and health needs—deprivation is of course a driver of patients’ health needs. We are committed to making sure that patients have access to high-quality GP services wherever they live and ensuring that in the same geographical area similar practices receive effectively the same amount of funding for each patient they look after.
It is also worth highlighting the overall impact for practices, both in the country more generally and in London in particular. NHS England has undertaken analysis regarding the withdrawal of the MPIG. Inevitably, a small number of practices will lose funding, and NHS England has considered the very small number of significant outlier practices for which alternative arrangements may need to be made to ensure appropriate services are maintained for local people.
We appreciate that this is a matter of concern for some practices, including some in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that he has mentioned today. That is why we have decided to use the next seven years to implement the changes to the MPIG, introducing them gradually through a phased transition to a new funding arrangement, rather than taking a big bang approach. Phasing the changes in over that seven-year period will allow the minority of practices that lose funding to adjust more gradually to the reduction in payments.
As the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his remarks, the changes cannot be seen in isolation but should be looked at together with the changes to the quality and outcomes framework payments for GP practices; those changes need to be set alongside the global sum paid to GMS practices. When all those factors are put together, I understand that practices in London with a GMS contract, of which there are 721, will see an overall funding increase of £731,000 resulting from the net effect of all the changes. I will write to the hon. Gentleman to outline that in detail ahead of his meeting with my noble Friend Earl Howe.
Jim Fitzpatrick
When we have that meeting with Lord Howe, it would be useful if NHS England could provide the Minister and his officials with an accurate breakdown of figures for the practices in Tower Hamlets. Given the order of deprivation, the chronic ailments and conditions, the age profiles of very elderly and very young people, and the language problems, even NHS England, as I quoted, is saying that the combination of changes to the minimum practice income guarantee and the quality and outcomes framework reductions is creating specific difficulties in Tower Hamlets that are not generally replicated across the rest of London.
Dr Poulter
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to outline the more general points, and I am sure that we can ensure that more specific details are available for him to discuss in his meeting with my noble Friend Earl Howe. NHS England has made it clear that it has been looking carefully at how it can support the practices that are most affected, through its area teams, and I am sure that it will be happy to continue a dialogue with local practices and with the hon. Gentleman to work out how further local support could be given if some practices are struggling as a result of the changes. That offer has been made to those practices that have already been identified as most affected, but NHS England is continually reviewing the matter as a pathway process for phasing in the changes.
NHS England has also suggested that those practices with very small lists, which may be particularly affected, could collaborate through federating, networking or merging with other practices nearby to provide more cost-effective services. It also suggested that it would be possible to identify other ways in which practices might improve cost efficiency, such as reviewing staffing structures and other commissioning or contracting options—for example, how some patient care services are offered in the area by collaboration. Sometimes, back office costs and inefficiencies can be reduced to free up more money for patient care. We must remember that, on the whole, GP practices are small businesses in their own right. We expect NHS England to work with GPs to support best practice and technology, and to encourage general practices to collaborate and work together, and it is happy to do so. It is expected that general practices will do what they can to help themselves, and that NHS England will work with them to facilitate that for them as small business owners.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I recognise that there is some logic in the Minister’s suggestion about smaller practices. The Jubilee Street practice has 13,000 patients. It is a big practice and is multi-handed with clinicians and staffing, and is considered to be extremely efficiently run.
Dr Poulter
Indeed. I will talk in more detail about Tower Hamlets, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has a long history of collaboration, efficiently run practices and good working between GPs and other community health services to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society and to address specific issues of health care and equality. The hon. Gentleman outlined that in his speech and local GPs should be proud of what they have done and their work and efforts in many cases to help deliver greater efficiencies. Nevertheless, the offer is there from NHS England to engage with area teams to see what more support can be provided. It is keen to ensure that if particular practices believe they are disadvantaged, the teams will do what they can to work with the practices to mitigate that.
It is worth talking briefly about the changes in the quality and outcomes framework. In addition to the minimum practice income guarantee from April this year, we have also made changes to QOF and reduced it by more than a third to free up space and time for GPs to provide more proactive and personalised care for their patients, particularly the frail elderly. One of the great frustrations that we are all aware of—medical staff, health care staff and particularly GPs—has been the amount of bureaucracy that GPs are sometimes required to undertake, which has got in the way of their being able to deliver front-line patient care and spend time with patients. The changes to QOF were welcomed by the British Medical Association and GPs because they will help reduce the bureaucratic burden and allow GPs to spend more time with patients and focus more on personalised care and more vulnerable patient groups. I think we all believe that to be a good thing and a great achievement from those GP contract negotiations.
As part of the QOF changes, we have retired indicators when they were either duplicating other incentives in the health care system, or were of low clinical value and use—for example, if they were just process measures rather than measures linked directly to patient care. We are ensuring that the payment system is strongly linked to delivering better care and improving care for patients rather than to process measures. That has sometimes been a criticism of QOF payments in the past, not least by GPs. Removal of these indicators will help to reduce bureaucracy, unnecessary patient testing and unnecessary frequency of patient recall and recording.
The money released from the changes to QOF will be reinvested in the basic payments made to all general medical services practices, to which I alluded earlier. The global sum will be reinvested through the GP contract and I understand that practices in London with a general medical services contract will overall be net beneficiaries to the tune of roughly £700,000. We welcome that, and I will give the exact figures in my letter to the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that what I have said in this debate is an accurate reflection of the situation.
I turn to Tower Hamlets and will address some of the concerns that have been raised in the debate today. We understand that some practices have particular concerns about the changes to the minimum practice income guarantee and to QOF funding. I assure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that the Government and NHS England are committed to ensuring that good, high quality primary care for local people, such as his constituents, is a priority. I understand that despite being one of the most deprived boroughs in London, Tower Hamlets has developed some outstanding general practices often as a result of the hard work and dedication of the GPs who want to address health care needs, to look after vulnerable people in society, and to ensure that the health care inequalities that we have discussed are properly addressed. His local GPs and all health care staff delivering care on the ground should be proud of that.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, Tower Hamlets is top in the country for blood pressure and cholesterol control for patients with diabetes, resulting in reduced complications of diabetes and reduced admissions for heart attacks. It is also top in London for MMR vaccination and for flu vaccination for the over 65s. That is an example of how, even in one of the most deprived areas with some of the greatest health care needs, local GPs, local primary care and local community care are delivering very good results for patients. It is also one of the 14 national pioneers for integrated care, a programme in which primary care will play an increasingly important role. We want to keep people out of hospital and it is vital that they are supported in their own homes and communities. Integrating primary care with community care and effective adult social services care from the local authority will be key in delivering that.
I understand that NHS England’s area team has set up a task and finish group to look at the support that might be offered to practices with membership drawn from local medical committees and the London office of the clinical commissioning group’s chief officers and the local area primary care commissioning team. I understand that NHS England’s area team in London has been in regular contact with individual practices in Tower Hamlets to offer them ongoing support regarding these changes. I am sure that after this debate, that important input and dialogue will intensify to recognise some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
We also recognise some of the challenges facing small practices in delivering the increasingly wide range of primary care services as more services move from hospital settings into the community. All health services, hospital trusts, community and mental health care providers, as well as GPs, are facing the challenge of meeting increasing demand with small increases in funding. That demand is coming from an ageing population with increasing levels of long-term conditions as well as the costs of new drugs, and patients’ expectations. Those issues are faced throughout the health service, but they are acute in Tower Hamlets. Local GPs recognise the need for flexibility in the way in which future services are provided and we need to support practices to work together to demonstrate how best to use their resources for the benefit of all their patients.
We have announced that NHS England is supporting practices as they phase in the changes to the minimum practice income guarantee and to QOF payments. There is an offer to meet my noble Friend Lord Howe and I know that NHS England will continue to do what it can to support local practices in Tower Hamlets.
Again, I put on the record my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and to the local GPs who deliver some of the best health care outcomes in England for the patients they look after.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Handling Member's Correspondence
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I am today publishing a report on the performance of Departments and agencies on handling correspondence from Members and peers during the calendar year 2013.
Details are set out in the table below. Correspondence statistics for 2012 can be found in the Official Report, 13 May 2013, column 23W.
Departmental figures are based on substantive replies unless otherwise indicated. The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
Department or Agency | Target set for reply (working days) | Number of letter received | % of replies within target |
|---|---|---|---|
Attorney-General’s Office | 20 | 433 | 86 |
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills | 15 | 7,968 | 93 |
- Companies House | 10 | 114 | 100 |
- Insolvency Service | 15 | 62 | 89 |
- Land Registry | 15 | 107 | 93 |
- Skills Funding Agency | 10 | 451 | 96 |
Cabinet Office | 15 | 3,072 | 72 |
Charity Commission | 15 | 262 | 91 |
Department for Communities and Local Government | 10 | 9,832 | 72 |
- Planning Inspectorate | 10 | 1,022 | 81 |
Crown Prosecution Service | 20 | 410 | 89 |
Department for Culture, Media and Sport | 20 | 6,317 | 51 |
Ministry of Defence | 20 | 4,853 | 82 |
Department for Education2 | 15 | 16,898 | 66 |
Department of Energy and Climate Change | 15 | 6,920 | 74 |
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs | 15 | 10,362 | 71 |
- Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency | 15 | 113 | 94 |
- Rural Payments Agency | 15 | 179 | 91 |
Food Standards Agency * | |||
*DH Ministers replies | 20 | 141 | 87 |
*FSA Chair/CE replies | 20 | 114 | 89 |
Foreign and Commonwealth Office | 20 | 10,043 | 95 |
Department of Health | 18 | 18,918 | 95 |
- Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency 3 | 18 | 64 | 93 |
- Public Health England | 18 | 73 | 99 |
Home Office4 | 15 | 8,761 | 61 |
-UK Visas & Immigration/Immigration Enforcement/Border Force5 | 20 | 57,582 | 70 |
- Her Majesty’s Passport Office | 15 | 1,123 | 69 |
Department for International Development | 15 | 3,407 | 94 |
Ministry of Justice | 15 | 4,985 | 83 |
- HM Courts Service and Tribunals Service* | |||
*Where Ministers replied | 15 | 1,006 | 78 |
*Where CEO replied | 15 | 417 | 85 |
- National Archives (Minister and CEO replies) | 15 | 19 | 100 |
- National Offender Management Service | |||
*Where Ministers replied | 15 | 899 | 74 |
*Where CEO replied | 20 | 274 | 93 |
- Office of the Public Guardian* | |||
*Where Ministers replied | 15 | 47 | 90 |
*Where CEO replied | 10 | 52 | 98 |
- Official Solicitor and Public Trustee | 15 | 15 | 60 |
Northern Ireland Office | 15 | 509 | 86 |
Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Schools | 15 | 340 | 74 |
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets | 15 | 379 | 67 |
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons | 15 | 147 | 96 |
Office of the Leader of the House of Lords | 15 | 134 | 85 |
Office of Rail Regulation | 20 | 51 | 85 |
OFWAT (Water Services Regulation Authority) | 10 | 119 | 85 |
Scotland Office | 15 | 170 | 72 |
Serious Fraud Office | 20 | 64 | 73 |
Department for Transport | 20 | 8,041 | 97 |
- Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency | 7 | 2,272 | 99 |
- Driving Standards Agency | 10 | 192 | 98 |
- Highways Agency | 15 | 417 | 91 |
- Maritime and Coastguard Agency | 10 | 35 | 91 |
HM Treasury | 15 | 9,608 | 72 |
- H M Revenue and Customs* | |||
*Where Ministers replied | 15 | 1,915 | 73 |
*Where CEO replied | 15 | 6,331 | 83 |
Treasury Solicitor’s Department | 10 | 16 | 100 |
Wales Office | 15 | 47 | 100 |
Department for Work and Pensions | 20 | 21,005 | 89 |
- Child Maintenance Group6 | 15 | 1,410 | 99 |
- Health and Safety Executive | 15 | 165 | 95 |
- Human Resources | 15 | 20 | 38 |
- Director General7 | 15 | 2,825 | 97 |
1 Departments and Agencies which received 10 MPs/Peers letters or fewer are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated. The report does not include correspondence considered as Freedom of Information requests. 2 Department for Education statistics include Education Funding Agency, National College of Teaching and Leadership, and Standards and Testing Agency. 3 From 1 January to 16 June 2013 the target set for reply at MHRA was 20 working days. The reduction to 18 on 17 June was made to bring the Agency in line with the target set by the Department of Health. 4 HOHQ refers to all Home Office correspondence that is not dealt with within UKVI/IE/BF (the former UKBA). 5 Reported separately from HOHQ because of different target that applies to these cases. 6 Formerly Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission. 7 Formerly Chief Operations Officer. |
National Strategy for Maritime Security
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
I am today laying before the House the UK national strategy for maritime security (NSMS), which outlines for the first time the UK’s coherent and co-ordinated approach to delivering maritime security at home and internationally by explaining how we organise and use our extensive national capabilities to identify, assess and address maritime security challenges. The strategy places the maritime domain in context, highlighting its importance to UK prosperity and security and explains how, through effective collaboration across Government and with industry and our international partners, and through the integration of our assets and personnel wherever possible, we will deliver a maritime security output much greater than the sum of its parts.
The strategy’s objectives are: to promote a secure international maritime domain and uphold international maritime norms; to develop the maritime governance capacity and capabilities of states in areas of strategic maritime importance; to protect the UK and the overseas territories, their citizens and economies by supporting the safety and security of ports and offshore installations and Red Ensign Group-flagged passenger and cargo vessels; to assure the security of vital maritime trade and energy transportation routes within the UK marine area, regionally and internationally, and to protect the resources and population of the UK and the overseas territories from illegal and dangerous activity, including serious organised crime and terrorism.
The strategy also introduces a robust Government approach to maritime security decision making and confirms our commitment to preserving the flow of maritime trade and upholding international maritime law.
Foreign Affairs Council for Development
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
On 19 May, I will attend the Foreign Affairs Council for Development in Brussels. The meeting will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. The UK is recognised as a leader in international development as the first G7 member to reach the UN aid target of 0.7% gross national income. As Secretary of State for International Development, I look forward to participating in the meeting to share the UK experience in delivering world-class international development and to work with other member states to push the EU to do more to use its development, humanitarian, trade and diplomatic instruments in a coherent way to end poverty.
Introduction
Baroness Ashton is expected to cover a number of topics in her introductory remarks, including an update on the Ukraine donor co-ordination platform. I will take this opportunity to underline the vital role which the EU and member states can play in supporting the Ukrainian Government’s reform efforts.
Post-2015 agenda
The UK remains at the forefront of the post-2015 discussions, building on the Prime Minister’s co-chairing of the UN high-level panel. Ministers will discuss progress in the international post-2015 process, including reflecting on current discussions in the open working group on sustainable development goals and next steps for the EU. I will use this discussion to encourage the EU and member states to think strategically about how to ensure we get the best possible outcome from next year’s UN negotiations.
Programming
The UK has been influential in strengthening EU development delivery. The EU is at the start of a new seven-year programming cycle under the new multi-annual financial framework. As a result of UK and like-minded member states’ efforts, there will be a greater focus on the poorest countries, increased flexibility and country ownership, and an enhanced ability to measure results of EU aid. Ministers will receive an update on implementation of the agenda for change, including programming of EU financial instruments and emerging trends in the current programming period. I will welcome progress towards a results-based approach to the delivery of EU aid, but also call for further action on results, tracking and value for money and greater ambition on girls and women.
Rights-based approach to development
Ministers will adopt Council conclusions on a rights-based approach to development co-operation reaffirming that promotion of human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance, and inclusive and sustainable growth, are basic and mutually reinforcing pillars of the EU’s development policy.
Other agenda items
I expect to receive updates from the Commission and European External Action Service on the forthcoming communication on private sector development, progress on policy coherence for development, the recent global partnership for effective development co-operation ministerial, and the Eastern Partnership. I will also update my counterparts on the “girl summit” which the Prime Minister and UNICEF will co-host on 22 July. This will be a defining moment to rally a global movement to end female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage for all girls within a generation. With global co-operation, we can build on the efforts of many developing country Governments and local communities to end these harmful practices.
Prison Service Pay Review Body (Triennial Review)
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Civil Justice and Legal Policy, Ministry of Justice, Lord Faulks, has made the following written ministerial statement:
On 4 March 2014, I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, the commencement of the triennial review of the Prison Service Pay Review Body (PSPRB). I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The PSPRB plays an important role providing independent advice to the Secretary of State for Justice and the review has concluded that the body remains fit for purpose, delivering relevant and beneficial functions on behalf of the Prison Service, in an appropriate governance framework. The report makes some minor recommendations to improve the governance arrangements for the PSPRB and these will be examined and implemented as required.
The triennial review has been carried out comprehensively and I am grateful to all those who contributed to this review. I have, today, placed a copy of the report in the Libraries of both Houses.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I would like to inform the House that a statement I made on 29 April 2014 during an adjournment debate on proposed Government reforms to taxi and private hire vehicle regulations, Official Report, column 225WH, was incorrect. During the speech I stated that:
“the Government asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of the law. As has rightly been pointed out, it will present its report—it will not be presenting a Bill; it will be presenting a report in the next few weeks—and at that stage, as with all reviews and reports, the Government will review the whole of those detailed findings and recommendations.”
This was incorrect as the Law Commission will later this month present the Government with both a comprehensive review of taxi and private hire legislation as well as a draft Bill. However, the Government have no plans to introduce a dedicated taxi Bill in the final parliamentary Session. Instead, Government will consider the detailed findings of, and recommendations made, by the Law Commission before setting out our thinking on each in due course.
Given there will be no dedicated taxi Bill this Parliament, the measures which the Government intend to take forward within the Deregulation Bill represent an ideal opportunity to make a real-world difference to the business men and women who make up the taxi and private hire vehicle trades.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)
My Lords, good afternoon. I am sure that there will not be a Division in the House, but if there is the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Scientific Infrastructure (S&T Report)
Lord Krebs
To move that this House takes note of the report of the Science and Technology Committee on scientific infrastructure (2nd Report, HL Paper 76).
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Oxford University, as a career scientific researcher and as a former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council.
I thank the members of the Science and Technology Committee for their excellent contributions in producing this report. I particularly thank our specialist adviser, Professor Brian Collins, who was formerly the Chief Scientific Adviser in the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and who is currently at UCL. We certainly benefited very much from his wise guidance and advice. I also thank the Minister for the Government’s response to our report. I will say at the outset that the Government’s response and the associated announcements have been very encouraging. I congratulate the Minister on that, and I will return to the good news story later on.
I will start by setting the scene by defining what the report, entitled Scientific Infrastructure, is concerned with. If asked what the ingredients are that you need to carry out scientific research successfully, clearly, you need the right people, the costs of conducting research—whether experiments or theoretical work—and the appropriate equipment and facilities in which to carry out research. Our report is concerned with the last of those three elements: the infrastructure that is essential for scientific research.
To look at how we define infrastructure, we include three things. First, we include the very large facilities of which there may be perhaps only one in the UK, one in Europe or even one in the world. An example is the Diamond Light Source based near Oxford; there is one of those synchrotron sources in the United Kingdom. Another is the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, which I am about to visit later this week and which is the only one in Europe. Secondly, in our definition of infrastructure, there are medium-sized pieces of equipment that are shared between several institutions, such as the London Centre for Nanotechnology, in which specialist equipment is accessed by researchers from leading London universities such as UCL and Imperial College. Thirdly, and importantly, we included in our definition the national laboratories—the public sector research establishments—that are repositories of data, expertise and national capabilities, and that serve the public good of the whole country; for example, the British Geological Survey and the former Institute for Animal Health.
We undertook this inquiry because of our concern about the consequences of a swingeing 46% cut in the capital spend for science that was announced in the 2010 comprehensive spending review. At that time the flat cash settlement for capital for science for the five-year CSR period would have been £3.295 billion, whereas the sum announced in 2010 was £1.896 billion. In the subsequent years there have been a number of ad hoc announcements by Ministers of new investment in capital for science, including for areas such as graphene research, space science and the “eight great technologies”—big data, space, robotics, synthetic biology, regenerative medicine, agri-science, advanced materials and energy. Between them, those later ad hoc announcements have brought the capital spend up to 94% of where it would have been with flat cash in 2010. However, the problem with those one-off announcements is that they do not add up to a coherent strategy for investment in the future of our scientific infrastructure.
As an aside, in contrast to the cut in 2010 to capital spend for science, the Government have since maintained the flat cash ring-fence around the science budget for programmes and projects. That has been welcomed by the scientific community as relatively good news in times of austerity. I will refer to that again later, but we wanted to ask whether the future potential of that investment in programmes and projects might be threatened by the lack of a coherent plan and sufficient investment in scientific infrastructure. The importance attached to that question is illustrated by the fact that we received around 100 submissions of evidence not just from academia but from industry, charities, learned societies, public sector laboratories and so on—and not just from the UK; they were from overseas as well.
Before I summarise what this plethora of evidence told us, let me just provide a bit of background context about UK science. As noble Lords will know, the United Kingdom punches well above its weight in science; it is one of our great success stories. In its 2013 report, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills states that we have 4.1% of the world’s scientists, 11.6% of the world’s citations of scientific papers and 15.9% of the most highly cited papers in the scientific literature—the papers that really make a difference. Furthermore, that astounding achievement is delivered on an investment well below the OECD average. In 2012, our investment was 1.72% of GDP, the lowest of the G8 countries and well below the EU average of 2.08%. Our main competitors such as the USA, Germany and Japan spend around 3% of GDP on research and development. According to the Campaign for Science and Engineering, in 2011-12—the last year for which figures are available—government spend on science was at its lowest level for 10 years. Therefore, as I have said, although the scientific community has welcomed the protection of the ring-fence for programmes and projects and other commitments to science, we as a nation are still investing far less than our competitors.
That was a bit of context, but now let me summarise the key results of our inquiry, and I am sure that other noble Lords will wish to speak in more detail on particular points. First and foremost, we concluded that at the moment the UK has globally competitive scientific infrastructure in many areas, but there is no room for complacency. As I said, other countries invest more than we do in science and we cannot take our position at the top table for granted. We identified two shortcomings in our investment in scientific infrastructure: the lack of a long-term strategy; and the failure to provide adequate running costs for facilities, so that we have sometimes ended up with expensive kit and not enough money to run it to full capacity.
As I mentioned, the series of one-off announcements since 2010 of investment in scientific infrastructure have not added up to a coherent strategy. As was made clear to us in our evidence, investment in very large facilities such as the Diamond Light Source requires decades of planning rather than the approach—it looked like pulling rabbits out of hats—that we have seen in recent years. The lack of running costs for large infrastructure was brought home to us by the fact that the ISIS pulsed neutron and muon source, used for the study of the atomic structure of materials, is operated for only 120 days a year, well below its capacity of 180 days a year, because of a lack of an operational budget. That was just one of many examples. As one witness put it to us:
“When we are not running very expensive machines with capital costs in the hundreds of millions or even billions of pounds, and we are saving a few million in electricity bills every year, that is not a reasonable economic strategy”.
In addition to those two key findings—the lack of a strategy and the lack of operational costs—we draw attention in our report to three other key points. First, and of really high importance, we note our concern that the future of some public sector research establishments as custodians of data and national capability may be eroded by the urge to turn them into quasi-private money-making ventures. We are concerned that this may be a very short-sighted policy in relation to national need.
Secondly, there is great benefit to the UK in engaging proactively in international infrastructure projects. Many of the very large pieces of kit cannot be supported by one country and are built on an international basis. The host country can gain significant benefit, such as substantial leverage of funding and jobs. However, we hear that the Government sometimes have appeared reluctant to take the lead in hosting major international facilities. For instance, the UK currently hosts the Joint European Torus, or JET, project at Culham near Oxford for research on nuclear fusion. This facility, for which we pay 12.5% of the costs, has brought great benefit to the local community and the opportunity for training and development of technical skills. Yet, for reasons that were not explained to us, the UK did not bid to host the successor to JET, which will instead be hosted by France.
Thirdly, we heard from industry witnesses that the charging regime for industrial users for access to UK scientific infrastructure is more punitive than in some other countries. Rolls-Royce, for instance, told us that its US competitors have free or low-cost access to high-performance computing. It goes on to say:
“It is important that UK companies have the playing-field levelled”.
Those are our key conclusions and recommendations.
As I said earlier, the Government’s response was extremely positive. First, the Government have since our report announced a new commitment to invest in scientific infrastructure starting at £1.1 billion per year in 2015-16 and rising with inflation each year up to 2020-21. That is a welcome commitment to reverse the decline that took place in 2010. At the same time, at the end of April, the Government launched a consultation on how best to invest this money for the future of UK science. We had recommended that the director-general for knowledge and innovation in BIS, Sir John O’Reilly, should lead an advisory group to develop a long-term strategy for investment in infrastructure. This has been accepted, and the group will be a ministerial group chaired by the DGKI with representatives from the key funders, as we suggested, and from industry. The Government in their response also state that our other recommendations, including those related to operational costs and international collaboration, will be considered by this advisory group. This response, as I have said already, is very encouraging, and we look forward to the report of Sir John O’Reilly’s group.
In previous debates on my Select Committee’s reports, the Government have usually been pressed to take further action or make further commitments. In this case, however, I have to take the unusual step of congratulating them on their positive response and commitments.
More generally, the Government’s commitment to investing in science, including scientific infrastructure, is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his recent speech in Cambridge, based in part on the notion of building on success—science is something that we are extraordinarily good at—and in part on the notion that investment in science will bring economic gains to the country. I quote from the Chancellor’s speech:
“I’m here to talk about British science because it is something that I am personally passionate about. I get that this is something Britain is brilliant at—and that it is vitally important to our economic future”.
In this vein, we must not forget, as I have already said, that although the Government’s commitment to science is welcome, we are nevertheless as a nation underinvesting when we compare ourselves with our global competitors. We cannot expect to stay in the very top group of scientific nations on brain power and imagination alone; we need sustained and increased investment from both public and private sectors. We must also not forget that many, if not most, of the scientific advances—from lasers to liquid crystal, from DNA to monoclonal antibodies—that have yielded commercial or other benefit to the nation have arisen not as a result of applied research but as a result of pure blue-skies, curiosity-driven research. It is vital that we protect the ability and capacity of scientists to follow their own intuition and curiosity.
I will close by asking the Minister two questions. First, does he agree that, following the very welcome commitment to a sustained investment in infrastructure, we cannot be complacent? This should not be taken as “job done, box ticked” but rather as a start in the UK’s long-term commitment not just to maintain but to increase its investment in science R&D.
Secondly, this is perhaps slightly tangential to today’s debate but I cannot resist the opportunity of raising the question of the future of AstraZeneca. Biomedical science is an area in which we are absolutely at the top of the world league. The translation of that science into benefits to society in terms of health and to the economy in terms of jobs and prosperity depends on the close relationships between the UK academic base and UK industry. I very much hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are acutely aware of this in considering their response to Pfizer’s approach to AstraZeneca. I beg to move.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking most sincerely the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for having introduced this debate and for having chaired the inquiry—and, indeed, for having chaired the Select Committee for the past four years with great distinction. He chaired his final meeting this morning. He will be very greatly missed by members of the committee. His introduction to today’s debate reminds us of his great expertise in so many of these areas, where his own background complements so well the subject under discussion. I, too, declare an interest as chair of the advisory committee of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, which is a Natural Environment Research Council research centre. I also thank our very distinguished specialist adviser, Professor Brian Collins, for his help with our inquiry.
I think we all recognise that it is one of the consequences of a successful research programme in most areas of science and technology—perhaps not all but almost all—that as you achieve international renown, so the stakes get ever higher. That is certainly true of many of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to. Whole new research areas open up on the back of dramatic advances, which in turn require new infrastructure facilities, sometimes extremely expensive ones, for those who wish to remain relevant and internationally competitive. As box 1 at the beginning of our report says,
“the Diamond Light Source is the UK’s national synchrotron facility”,
which is a very good example of a major investment in scientific infrastructure and one which has the prospect of leading to applications of great economic and cultural importance in engineering, pharmaceuticals and the environment.
However, I want to concentrate on box 2 on page 10, which is the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, described as the third category of infrastructure. Box 2 refers to the continuing need for scientific infrastructure,
“for monitoring and understanding the natural environment”.
I reiterate my interest at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Box 2 lists seven research centres funded by the NERC, which have for many years required very considerable scientific infrastructure expenditure in terms of research ships, aircraft, laboratories, the maintenance of vast data sets and, in the case of the British Antarctic Survey, research stations in a highly hostile environment and all the costs involved therein.
As a maritime nation, we are rightly proud of our contribution to oceanography but, again, the price of membership as a world-leading research centre is high. The cost of maintaining and servicing ships and the cost of fuel—let alone the cost of building ships in the first place—increases faster than research budgets. Research in polar regions—the Arctic as well as Antarctica—is, again, a field in which we have always played a very significant role. Some would say that we started the discipline in the time of Scott. If we want to continue to be a major contributor to polar research—we clearly cannot be the largest any more—as I hope we will be, we simply must understand the infrastructure implications. You cannot be half in and half out. You have either got to have a commitment or have none at all.
Again, in the area of big data, as the report points out, the computing advisory panel at the Science and Technology Facilities Council reminds us that for the effective handling and analysis of increasingly large data sets, and for the purposes of curating these data and making them available for further exploitation, we simply have to put the appropriate infrastructure in place. The sort of environmental research to which I have been referring is very much about accumulating, curating and exploiting data of sometimes mammoth proportions.
These NERC research centres—and this will be true of other research council centres—will over the next generation need access to large infrastructure funds if they are to retain their status as world-leading research organisations. There is simply no way that you can carry out world-class research with outdated facilities. I remember vividly that in the 1990s, when I chaired the Agricultural and Food Research Council, now subsumed into the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Government of the day decided—perfectly reasonably, perhaps, some would have thought—that much of the funding for food production was no longer a priority and that, because research funding was, as always, tight, we had to close down and amalgamate a considerable number of institutes. It was a painful exercise, as I remember to my cost; I still bear the scars. Quite frankly, 20 years later, many now regret that quite such draconian measures were taken as food security comes up the political agenda.
If we look forward to the present situation, I hope that we will not allow our environmental research centres to wither through a failure to recognise the inevitable need to update infrastructure facilities. As we address the need for both mediation of and adaptation to climate change, the loss of both terrestrial and marine biodiversity, ocean acidification and the need for new energy sources, for all of these we will have to rely on national capability and independent scientific advice for managing this environmental change and building national resilience to environmental hazards. We will need world-leading research organisations that advance knowledge across land, freshwater, oceans and the atmosphere. We will need to advance our understanding of the structure, properties and processes of the solid earth system.
We will also need to maintain the extremely important—indeed, unique—data networks which we have amassed. I shall list one or two to give noble Lords a flavour of the range, all of which require continuing upkeep to be serviceable: the Biological Records Centre; the National River Flow Archive; the Environmental Change Network; the national geological datasets; the National Geological Repository; the deep-sea core sediment repository; and other national oceanographic assets. These are assets of which we are custodians for future generations. With this comes a responsibility which cannot be abandoned. Yet this is where I do not envy the role of those, now, who have to make these difficult decisions in research councils—nor, indeed, the role of Ministers. When new areas of science open up, such as nanotechnology, genomics, graphene research and many others, these inevitably require commitments also. It will inevitably be an extremely difficult decision as to how you prioritise.
That is why I strongly support the main thrust of the report set out in the recommendations in paragraphs 27 to 29. The BIS director-general of knowledge and innovation is to be charged with the responsibility of producing a long-term strategy and investment plan for scientific infrastructure. This would go well beyond the research councils and the universities and must include the facilities required by industry and, indeed, those which complement industry and the private sector. These are not just the structures that need to inform our investment priorities for the next 10 to 15 years, but should give a pointer for the next generation or even more. That is not an unreasonable timescale when considering the lifetime of many of the facilities we are talking about.
Again, I join the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in congratulating the Government on their response; they have taken up the challenge. I accept that what we are asking for is indeed a challenge. We need an assessment of our investment priorities for infrastructure for effectively the next generation. I shall read from the Government’s response, which states that,
“the Minister for Universities and Science will be leading a consultation on long term science and research capital … This consultation will inform the roadmap on long term science capital, which will be central to the Science and Innovation Strategy HMG are publishing at Autumn Statement 2014”.
If the report by Professor Sir John O’Reilly achieves what we hope it will, it could be a document of absolutely seminal importance. I do not think that anyone underrates how difficult it will be to produce and how many hard decisions will no doubt have to be taken, but as a member of the committee which put forward these proposals, I am enormously heartened that the challenge has been taken up.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate and to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who not only chaired this inquiry but, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has just said, has been the chairman of the committee for the past four years. I have been a member for three years now, and I have greatly enjoyed working under his chairmanship. I am sorry that he is standing down, but as we all know, there is a House rule that after four years one must do so. I should also declare an interest as a former fellow of and researcher at the Science and Technology Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex and currently as an honorary fellow of Birkbeck college.
This was an interesting inquiry for the committee to undertake. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, indicated, it was stimulated by what has happened to the science budget over the past three or four years. In the 2010 austerity Autumn Statement, although science funding itself was ring-fenced, it was done only in money terms and not in real terms, and only for current expenditure, thus not for capital expenditure. In relation to capital expenditure, the 2010-11 funding had originally been set at £872 million. Had that been carried through for the five years of this Government, it would have amounted to a total expenditure of £3.49 billion, whereas actually the Budget cut it to £1.896 billion, representing a cut in funding for science capital of 40%. This in turn led to substantial changes in plans that had been under way, with many projects being put on hold. But, in practice, the cuts were largely offset by a series of ad hoc announcements in Autumn Statements and March Budgets which restored the capital sum of funding to the original 2010 target level of around £3.5 billion. Some of these announcements were in addition to general funding, but quite a lot were committed to very specific projects, a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, such as the Open Data Institute, or associated with the announcement of the “eight great technologies”.
However, what we generally heard from our witnesses was that this sort of blowing hot and cold is highly disruptive to the long-term planning of science infrastructure, and it has happened several times over the past three decades. One looks back over time. In the 1980s, capital funding suffered severe cuts, but was restored to some extent in the early 1990s with cutbacks again at the end of the 1990s, and made good by the joint infrastructure programmes and science research infrastructure programmes of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in the 2000s. Then again in 2010 there were sharp cutbacks, summed up well by the Oxford University submission, which said that:
“The irregular appearance of capital to be allocated at short notice tends to militate against sustainable strategic investments in research infrastructure”.
That sums up the essence of our inquiry: we were worried that the erratic funding of capital projects was damaging Britain’s ability to hold its own within world science, and that what we needed was a longer-term sustainable planning framework that allowed, sometimes, for the 15, 20, 25 or even 30-year horizon necessary for some of these very major projects.
One of our main recommendations was that we needed to build some form of strategic framework with which to plan the investment, developed over time and adhered to by Governments. As has already been mentioned, there was the idea that the BIS director-general for knowledge and innovation should have responsibility for developing a long-term strategy and investment plan for scientific infrastructure, setting investment priorities over the next 10 to 15 years, and that for that purpose he should have an ad hoc committee of some sort to back him up. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, we were particularly concerned at the disconnect between capital and operational budgets—at the fact that the ISIS facility at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory was able to operate for only 120 days a year because of the need to save on electricity costs.
We were also anxious to see proper links between research council and higher education funding council expenditures at universities and big infrastructure projects—what we called the mid-range issues. As the University of Nottingham pointed out, it is important that samples are tested at the home laboratory before being taken to the Diamond Light Source. That optimises use of the very expensive national facility there, but requires the university itself to have access to appropriate up-to-date equipment. We put much emphasis here on the participation of universities in collaborations—not necessarily having the mid-size equipment themselves but being able to access it within their regional framework.
We also noted the benefits that stemmed from participating in and hosting major international scientific projects such as CERN or JET. Some quite interesting evidence was given about the development of CERN within the Swiss and French environment, and it was felt that the UK was not always as ready as it might be either to participate or to think about hosting such facilities. We wanted to see an evaluation of the costs and benefits of hosting such activities. In particular, we thought that successive Governments had perhaps underestimated the knock-on benefits from having both the highly trained scientific workforce that they created and the spillover benefits for start-up SMEs and small companies.
Finally, while welcoming the Government’s initiative to encourage collaboration with universities through the UK research partnership investment fund, we felt that rather more could be done to encourage industry to participate and contribute to the long-term planning of facilities.
Like others, one can only be very pleased with the Government’s response, and not only the response that we received in January; I was particularly impressed by the announcements in the Minister’s speech at Cambridge two or three weeks ago, and the publication at the end of April of the big consultation document on proposals for long-term capital investment in science and research, because essentially it picks up and does what we asked for. In the Autumn Statement, there was a commitment to a capital budget for 2015-16 of £1.1 billion a year, higher than up till now, which the Government now pledge to maintain in real terms through to 2021, over a five-year period, leading to a total spend of £5.9 billion—almost £6 billion.
As their response in January promised, the Government have now set up a major consultation exercise to discuss how best this money is to be spent. Some £1 billion of it is already committed to projects such as the European Space Agency, the Met Office, the Higgs institute and the new polar flagship. However, decisions about how best to allocate the approximately £5 billion that is left are to be made after consultation to assess the views of the scientific community and where its priorities lie. This consultation is to be led not by the director-general of knowledge and innovation, as we had suggested, but by the Science Minister himself. In some ways that is an extremely good thing; it gives real credibility to the fact that the Government are giving this priority and ministerial time. There will be an advisory group chaired by the director-general of knowledge and innovation, which will include representatives from the learned societies, the research councils, the higher education funding councils, industry and the charities. Essentially, the idea of this group, as of the consultation exercise itself, is to advise the Minister on the development of a strategic road map for science and research infrastructure.
There is great deal to be pleased about in terms of what we have achieved. I have a number of questions to put to the Minister, and perhaps he can answer either now or later. First, on technical skills, the response from the Government rightly put a good deal of emphasis on the development of digital skills and what the Government are doing to promote them. Our report, however, placed emphasis on the importance of infrastructure and providing a wider, technically trained workforce. The Government have been putting much emphasis on developing the technician-level apprenticeships in the STEM area. While we celebrate the very substantial increase in the number of apprentices under the Government, the figures in detail show that the majority of these apprenticeships are in fact only at level 2 and are in such areas as business administration and the retail trade. Do the Government have any up-to-date figures on how their attempts to get specialist apprentices working up to technician level—the sort of HND level—in the STEM area are doing? Do they have any more recent figures than are available?
Secondly, in terms of hosting international facilities, in their response the Government mentioned two studies under way, looking at the costs and benefits of hosting such centres, one led by BIS and the other by the OECD. This was in January. Has either of these studies been published and, if so, what were their main conclusions?
Thirdly, both we and the Government have put emphasis on the need for collaboration between institutions and with industry. In particular, both of us praised the achievements of the UK research partnership investment fund. However one of the very depressing features, probably the most depressing, of the scientific R&D scene in Britain is the degree to which industrial R&D fails to increase. Indeed, in real terms it has been falling. As we know, if we look at it as a proportion of GDP it has recently fallen even lower than it has been before. We are well below our international competitors on this issue.
A feature of this is that statistics on R&D usually lag two or three years behind the present. One would hope very much that the pick-up in economic growth over the past year has perhaps led industry to begin to move forward on this. Do the Minister or the department have any indication that we are seeing a turn in industrial R&D? What was encouraging was that the response to the partnership fund was a positive one, and we managed to lever a great deal of extra resource from industry as a result of it. However, it would be good to know that industry really is backing up what is happening more generally.
My final question, which is in a sense a plea, is this. One of the features of the evidence we received was that the timescales are extremely long. We are talking about going through to 2021, which is a seven-year horizon, and in budgetary terms about a five-year horizon. But one really needs a horizon of 15 or 20 years, and sometimes even 30 years. There was some discussion of whether there is a need for some sort of cross-party agreement. I raised this at a lecture a couple of weeks ago at University College, London, at which the Minister talked about the consultation exercise. I asked him whether there might be cross-party agreement to develop a long-term, forward-looking strategy for science infrastructure. He said, I think rightly, that there is no real disagreement between the Labour Party and the coalition in terms of the general targets for scientific research. However, general agreement is one thing—the Minister praised the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for what he had achieved—but it would be good to see some kind of formal cross-party agreement in this area. That is a question as much for the Labour Party as it is for the Minister. I think that the public would be pleased to see the parties working together in an area where there is no real party-political disagreement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Selborne in congratulating the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his four years. I believe that it is the last occasion on which he will introduce a report of the Select Committee in the House. We thank him very much for his service. It has been apparent that those who have spoken so far, and who all took part in the inquiry, are very familiar with the evidence. I must confess that although I have tried to look at it all, I should say that there are 500 pages of it on the internet and, quite frankly, I have not read more than a small part. If anything I say has been covered, I can only apologise for that.
I have two responses to make to the debate. One is a worry that has been touched on but which I would like to take a little further, while the other is a question for my noble friend the Minister. I turn first to the worry. There has been general praise for the Government’s response, and I should say at once that it is mostly encouraging. The committee raised the issue of the operational costs involved in making the best use of scientific infrastructure expenditure and considered the question put by my noble friend Lady Sharp, which is the provision of a suitably skilled workforce. That was included in the part of the report headed “Not just machines”, and of course that is hugely important.
I do not need to spell out the detailed evidence on which the committee made its fourth recommendation because it is set out in the report. The recommendation, which has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, describes,
“a damaging disconnect between capital investment and the funding for operational costs”.
The committee recommended that a way should be found in which two funding sources could be,
“tied together in one sustainable package”.
That sounds very sensible, but it is the Government’s response to this that worries me. After talking about recognising,
“the importance of greater alignment between capital and resource funding”,
and arguing that the commitment to rising capital spending is “matched” by the stability of ring-fenced resource funding, the response ends by referring to the recently published consultation paper, to which reference has been made. It is entitled Creating the Future: A 2020 Vision for Science and Research—A Consultation on Proposals for Long-term Capital Investment in Science and Research.
Over the weekend, I had a very good look at that consultation paper and perhaps I might be forgiven if I refer to it in rather greater detail than other speakers. Section 2 is headed “Science Strategy for Major New Projects”. Annexe A lists the projects on which consultees are invited to give their views. While a few of them are able to spell out the operational costs and to give estimates, most of them—indeed the majority—on the question of operational costs say:
“Subject to detailed business case”,
or that this depends on “international negotiations”.
How on earth are the scientists invited to look at this consultation paper, to express their views on the various exciting projects spelt out, to be able to do anything if they are given no guidance whatever as to what the operational costs may be? Even more, how could they do so if they do not have any confidence that their share of the allocated resources would enable them to play their part in operating the proposed infrastructure?
Paragraph 14 of the consultation paper is remarkably frank on that. It states:
“While capital budgets have been set to 2021, resource budgets beyond 2016 will be considered as part of the 2015 Spending Review (as with other areas of Government resource spending). Consequently, this consultation does not in itself represent a commitment to funding; rather, responses will inform the Science Capital Roadmap and decisions will be subject to the development of satisfactory business cases”.
How far does that take us?
The Science Minister is constrained by the Haldane principle in his ability to tell the research council what its priorities should be, but that does not apply to the capital budget so that he and his colleagues can prioritise the capital projects. Here we come to the point, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady Sharp have mentioned, about ad hoc announcements. The noble Lord mentioned graphene and a number of others have also been mentioned. They are decided outside the prioritisation process led by the research councils and the Technology Strategy Board. As we have been reminded, research councils are held to a flat cash budget in the current CSR and are not able in theory to commit resources beyond the CSR period. Therefore, they are reluctant to commit to new research budgets to make use of capital investment. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Selborne and, as has been pointed out, it often is extremely painful to have to cut back something in order to fund something new.
This is an issue of joined-up government. I do not see in the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendation anything other than that it is wholly inadequate. Having been a Minister and having dealt with responses of this kind, I detect that officials have drafted a form of words to sound sympathetic but to make sure that nothing changes. Therefore, I do not share the universal praise made for Government’s response. I hope that my noble friend may have something to say about that in his reply.
I am talking as someone who did not take part in the inquiry but who has taken part in other work of the Select Committee and I now turn to nuclear research and development. I looked through the evidence—as much as I could get on my screen—to see whether anybody had raised the issues the Select Committee explored a couple of years ago about the inadequacy of nuclear energy research and development in this country. As many of the noble Lords who took part in that inquiry will remember, we were frankly horrified by what we were told by our witnesses on that occasion. Energy research and innovation had virtually collapsed; it had dwindled to a very low level indeed over the preceding years. Although we heard that there had been substantial infrastructure expenditure—notably on the very splendid central laboratory of the National Nuclear Laboratory at Sellafield—almost none of it had been properly commissioned, because there was no money for it. That totally illustrates the points made in the committee’s fourth recommendation, but it does not look to me as though nuclear energy has figured in the committee’s report at all. I am deeply puzzled as to why.
I question why nuclear research and development are not part of this study. On the previous occasion, our report was a wake-up call to Ministers, and it is much to their credit that they responded very positively. The Beddington committee was set up and produced its recommendations. Not all of them have been implemented yet. We are already trying to follow them up. The only reference to the previous inquiry during the evidence was a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, but it did not touch on why nuclear research and development was not included in the proposed strategy.
What seems to have happened is that research spending, including scientific infrastructure, which is entirely in the control of individual departments—that is certainly true of nuclear energy R&D, which is run by DECC—has been regarded as outside the scope of the present inquiry. That is reinforced when one looks at the consultation paper, which seeks views on which projects should be given priority. It lists a wide range of fascinating projects, but it is not until one reaches annexe A5, on page 84, under the general heading “Energy Security and Resilience”, that one finds anything at all about nuclear energy. Even then, it does not say anything about the major research areas we touched on in the former inquiry, such as the nuclear fuel cycle, advanced reactor designs, collaboration with other countries, nuclear waste treatment and disposal, or any of the other matters that fall within DECC’s remit. Yes, a few research projects are being undertaken by the EPSRC—it was asked directly to take those on—but this is only a small proportion of the nuclear research that the Select Committee two years ago urged on the Government. Why was this inquiry not extended to departmental spending? Why has it been confined to the areas of infrastructure spending that lie in the research councils and—as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—the main public sector research establishments that BIS is responsible for?
The committee’s second recommendation, to which reference has been made and which I fully support, is for the establishment of,
“a long-term strategy and underpinning investment plan for scientific infrastructure”.
It then goes on to add the important words:
“This should take a comprehensive view of scientific infrastructure needs across the UK, extending beyond the jurisdiction of the Research Councils”.
This simply has not happened. Nothing in the consultation document indicates that that is going to change. When John O’Reilly gets to work on this he may well pick up that point, and say that there are a whole lot of other things. A lot of Defra’s expenditure is totally outside the scope of this, but it can be hugely important as well.
My question to my noble friend the Minister is therefore: do the Government believe that the infrastructure needs of nuclear energy research and innovation should continue to remain in a separate silo outside the recommended strategic plan, and therefore have no access to funding from the national scientific infrastructure spending pool? DECC’s ability to provide funds for this is, we know, severely constrained because its nuclear expenditure is entirely concentrated on decommissioning and, as it will be, dealing with waste.
I am of course aware that NIRAB—the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board—exists to advise the Government on nuclear R&D, and I hope that the Select Committee will find an early opportunity to question its chairman, Dame Sue Ion, about how it is getting on. However, there seems little doubt but that the resources available to DECC, which NIRAB may well call on for research, will fall well short of what is needed if this vital low-carbon technology of nuclear energy is to fulfil its potential over the next 30 or 40 years. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply to that question.
I end on a happier note. I, too, share the huge admiration for the speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few weeks ago at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. It left me in no doubt whatever of the Chancellor’s deep personal commitment to the advancement of science and innovation in this country. While lauding the achievements which enable this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it, to punch above its weight—which is certainly justified; he gave the figures—the Chancellor did not shirk the areas where we simply have to do better. Notably, these included the turning of British invention and discovery into British industrial and commercial success.
Yes, much has to be done. This Select Committee report shows how, in one major area of public spending, we could do better with the resources the Chancellor has been able to provide. I congratulate the committee very much and I hope that the Government will see their way to implement the recommendations, including recommendation 4.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak in the gap; I pressed the wrong button on my computer and did not get permission to be on the list.
The long-term investment emphasised by the Government is obviously a good decision and a good plan. However, as Professor Cowley mentioned, over the past 30 years, for the applications of science, UK government laboratories in the public sector are now fewer in number. A number of the privatised labs have rather a poor international reputation. One or two, of course, are excellent. The Met Office has a worldwide reputation, which is indeed partly based upon world-leading collaboration.
To keep this emphasis on British science is surely outdated. So many of our major activities are European and international. Comments have been made that we are not as effective as we should be in that respect. I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that government laboratories and all this funded work needs to be more open and collaborative with the UK private sector. I speak as somebody who has been on both sides of the camp; I am a chairman of a small company and an advisory committee. The fact is that some government labs see themselves as being in competition with the UK private sector, which is surely not what we want. This is utterly unlike the collaboration between government agencies and the private sector seen in the United Sates and Germany.
Data exchange is still very restrictive to the private sector. These excellent data centres to which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred have more or less open access to academics. They are almost closed to the private sector, which has to go to the United States to get much of these environmental data that go in a curious loop. Senior officials to whom I have spoken in BIS seem to be very uninterested in pushing forward the idea of having better data connection with the private sector. The Treasury, I learnt from discussions between the Treasury and a large government agency, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays believe in an open data policy, and on Thursdays and Fridays believe in charging for it. It is an extremely muddled situation, despite the famous Gordon Brown and Tim Berners-Lee report about open data during the previous Government.
Finally, I should ask how we are to move forward. One of the points made by this—if I may say so—nationalistic, inward-looking report is that we should have more international reviews of government laboratories. When I was at the Met Office, we had the ridiculous circus of the Public Accounts Committee, ending up with rounding errors and so on, whereas many of us have been on committees in other countries of the world where you look at the whole sector and the international status and so on; you do not make nit-picking points. The other feature in other countries is that they import technology; in this country, we have no system in depth for importing foreign technology. That is absolutely standard in other countries. It is ridiculous to think, “We’re going to do it all ourselves” when we are only 8%. Surely we should meet the financial and other challenges by taking a more effective international and European view. We should get advice about that, and this report might well move its objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has just emphasised some of these problems. One hopes that, as the committee looks at this report again, it might take this broader view.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the board of the Diamond Light Source for the past six years. I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the committee on this report, which is very important. I agree with what he and others said about the inadequacy of our overall R&D expenditure in the UK; I have mentioned it several times in this House.
I am speaking in the gap because I want to make a detailed point about the flexibility of capital spending. At present, recently imposed rules—coming from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills perhaps and set by the Treasury—prevent the carrying over of any capital funds from one financial year to the next. This is not sensible; it is even detrimental in the funding of state-of-the-art, large, complex scientific systems. Many components of such systems are themselves under development, and delivery times, even from the best suppliers, are not reliable. These components can also be very expensive; for example, quite easily 10% or more of an annual capital budget. Should a delivery slip across the end of a financial year, the money is presently lost, leading to overly conservative purchasing decisions. There are also cases where suppliers offer special time-limited deals on equipment, and it pays to have reserve to take advantage of this. The lack of flexibility in carrying funds from one year to another also encourages the bad practice at the end of a financial year of just buying back-up equipment and putting it in cupboards. I have seen this inefficient practice in industry, when the mistake was made of imposing on research organisations a zero carryover policy. I recommend that exceptions be made and flexibility allowed in the funding of large, state-of-the-art scientific systems. This was certainly enjoyed by Diamond in its early years and was quite important in meeting budgets and schedules et cetera—perhaps 10% should be allowed in the carryover.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare a very ancient interest in the sense that I was an undergraduate and studied chemistry, so I have some background in this—I am afraid that it has not been an active pursuit, although one tries to keep up as much as one can. However, it has been a useful background for reading this report and some of the evidence referred to in earlier speeches, which certainly taxes some of the skills that I acquired in that earlier period.
I thank the chair and all members of the committee for their excellent report. I also thank him for his valedictory appearance as chair. He introduced his report very well and made it very easy for us to get into this debate. I am on record as always complaining when asked to debate committee reports. We have this wonderful system in the House of organising committees on specialist topics, with the time and the resources to inquire in depth into areas. As a result, their reports are often mines of information and fantastically useful for all interested in public policy if not necessarily in the particular area concerned. Therefore, for example, I think this committee reported in November 2013, and the government response came in January 2014, but we are only now able to debate it. That is a pity. It is not that the recommendations or the quality of the report will go off with time, and neither will it improve like a wine. Nevertheless, it would be better if we could somehow get a message back to the powers that be that we should somehow align better our discussions and debates on the results of the work that is done. No doubt I will get myself into trouble with that comment as I did the last time I raised this with the Chief Whip, who got very cross because of what I said, and said that it was not her fault. I am sure that in this case it is not her fault—I emphasise that. However, I just make a general point that it would be in the interest of this House if we could do a bit better as regards getting to discuss those issues.
As the report recognises, our scientific infrastructure plays a key role in maintaining our reputation for research excellence. We have high-quality facilities, which attract world-class researchers and investment from around the world, therefore allowing us to carry on research projects which in turn support the wealth and welfare of the nation. As the committee rightly points out, it is important that this country maintains and builds upon this reputation if we are to keep up in the global race. I do not think that there is any party-political disagreement on that, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We welcome the Government’s announcement of a long-term commitment to increase the science and research capital investment in real terms to £1.1 billion in 2015-16, then grow it in line with inflation each year to 2021. I say that not just because it follows the recommendations or the practice of the previous Government, although we had a 10-year plan and not just a five or six-year plan as is now the arrangement. However, this is the right way to approach this area, and I welcome not only the announcement but also that the consultation will take place to make sure that the strategic UK priorities we are building up or continuing in our world-class science can be carried out. However, I will come back to both those points later on.
Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con)
I wonder how far I can afford to be profoundly discourteous. I did not know that this debate was taking place; I have only just seen its identity and its nature. One of my overwhelmingly important hobby horses is our total failure and neglect of our units of measurement—
Lord Popat (Con)
I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. Noble Lords were listed to speak in this debate.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
I wanted to ask only the following question. Magna Carta declared profoundly that the most important thing for the country was a coherent and effective system of units and measures, and that has been repeatedly reviewed. I will not go through the details to a great extent, but once in the 19th century—in 1862—the House of Commons unanimously recommended the adoption of the metric system. In 1904 the House of Commons did the same thing. In 1939 it was adopted. Certainly, in my time as Minister for Consumer Affairs in 1984 it was there, and we dealt with it entirely.
This is why it is important for me to make the following confession: the folly which created our present chaos came about when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1983 I think it was. The Metrication Board had been in existence for many years. I dissolved the board, whose work was completed, but as a result we are now almost unique in that almost everyone—schools, scholars, scientists—has to grapple with a dual system of measurements. Happily, Ireland has given that up and it has metrication, as has most of the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. We are alone in this shambolic state. I plead, deeply seriously, to take this opportunity to draw attention to it. I hope that noble Lords have been taking close interest in this important set of problems, because I cannot think of any other aspect of it that deserves more importance than the one that I have had the impertinence to identify.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I ask the Minister to respond to that point, if he can.
I was struck by the assertions made at the beginning of the report not only on the need to preserve the Haldane principle, which I agree is a very important part of what needs to happen within the scientific community, but about the need to ensure that the allocation of funds for science that are to be used within a long-term planning framework should be done by an independent committee. I am a little confused by the Government’s response to the second and third recommendations, which both mention committees. When the Minister comes to respond, perhaps he could be clear about how this is going to be taken forward. Is the committee that is going to be advising on the long-term strategy, and which is to be led by the director-general of knowledge and information at BIS, to be a ministerial committee, or will it be outside the ambit of ministerial control? The third recommendation appears to refer to a ministerial group that would be led by the BIS DGKI but, in response to the second recommendation, the Government say that the Minister will be leading a group to look at the strategy. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some clarification on this point, and in so doing perhaps he could say how many committees will be set up, what work they are actually going to do, and how those arrangements fit best with the committee’s recommendations.
Much of the debate today has focused on the need for a better match, or to remove the disconnect, between the capital investment coming forward and the operational and running costs. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, drew attention to the problems around long-term capital operations and whether the funding is going to be in place for the long term, although perhaps not as long as it could be, and the shorter-term funding that will be available to meet running costs and the possibility that that will be considered within the overall departmental spend. Is it not important to try to reconnect these issues because, without proper consideration being given to operational running costs, investment will have to be mothballed or, worse, closed down without it ever making the contribution it should? If there is genuinely to be a long-term science commitment, surely it must apply to both running costs and capital costs.
A related point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. There is a need to align the training of those who are to operate in these centres with the capital and running costs funding. This raises the high-level apprenticeship problem, which has come up in a number of debates and discussions. There are more and more apprenticeships, which is a good thing, but the quality of the training they are receiving seems to stop at the lower end of the spectrum and does not reach the higher technician level, which is what will be desperately needed if the science agenda is to be continued.
The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, along with several other noble Lords, raised the question of the PSREs, which come out well in the report. The intention is for them to be privatised, which may result in a loss of the data which have been built up over the years; there is an issue around the lack of control we will have over that. Another problem is that of the inability of these bodies, once they are privatised or semi-privatised, to contribute to international research. I hope that the Minister will refer to this when he responds. As a result of the problems with JET, which have been alluded to, we were unable to get international projects that would have been of benefit because we had failed to identify the contribution that could be made within the PSRE circuit.
We have talked a bit about co-operation, particularly with industry but also with other aspects of industrial life, including the NHS and other areas. Obviously, the contribution made by the RPIF as signalled in the report has been good, but the question to be asked here is this: what more could be done? Does BIS have any plans to try to stimulate industrial spending on R&D and is there a way in which it could be identified in order to harness the work effort better within the science community?
The final question I want to put reflects the request by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for a little more support than is outlined in the Government’s response. I would like to know whether the Minister can commit to that. I am sure he will say that it is a matter for the Treasury at the appropriate time, but it would be interesting to know whether he can in some sense respond to the interest that has been expressed in more money—not just because that would be good in itself, but of course because of the problem, which I will come back to, of the gap in funding that has grown between 2010 and 2015.
The question of AstraZeneca and Pfizer was also raised. Again, it would be interesting to get a response on that, not just because it is topical but because it reflects an overall ambition that government must have to ensure that there is a broader context in which the science happens. Without the industrial contributions from AstraZeneca, based in Britain and with resources all round the country, the work that is done in science will be diminished if those facilities are curtailed because of that result.
At the heart of this is a question about the money—the gap that exists because of the way in which the original plan from 2004 still hangs in the air. Obviously, if the Government’s ambition is to make the UK the best place in the world to do science and research, it echoes what was said when the 10-year investment framework for science and innovation was produced at the time of the 2004 spending review. That framework, which was produced by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—he did a great deal of work on that, for which we should pay tribute to him—had a slightly higher ambition in the sense that it was not just science and innovation for its own sake; it was also trying to link it to the contribution it would make to economic growth and public services.
I did not see much of that wider contribution referenced in the Government’s response to the Scientific Infrastructure report. That may be because the report itself did not specifically cover those areas, but it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that remains part of the contribution. This is a much bigger picture. As the Mayor of London said in his contribution to the debate, we have to think very hard across all the organisations that are working in this area—the NHS, the centres that are being built up, particularly in universities, and the industrial centres—because they all need to contribute if we are going to get the best out of this.
I come back to the problem with the money. By my calculations, the cut that was made in 2010 comes to about £500 million. That is not being replaced, even though the new baseline figure will be moved forward with inflation as we move to 2021. Simply having a ring-fence in place, which was the situation when Labour left office, did not protect the science budget from austerity measures. We are not going to get back the frozen cash terms in 2010 and capital spending that has been cut.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, we have seen ad hoc announcements. But the problem with that, as he said very clearly, is that you get one-off grants; they are welcome but they are not what was meant to happen because they do not fit with any plans that might have been there. They therefore in turn have a sort of stifling effect on the planning that would be going on ordinarily because those who might plan it will not be certain that they are going to get the funds. They also seem to introduce an alien element, which is that the decisions to fund come from somewhere else. They do not come from the community or from BIS; they are imported. They are not wrong in themselves; it is just that they are not necessarily fitting in. We cannot be against money for a graphene centre. I am sure that is the future. But if it could be developed within an overall policy that allowed for it to come on stream at the appropriate time, that would be so much better.
My second point is that although the government response of 2014 talks very clearly about the funding that is going to be available up to 2020, things have changed since January 2014 and it is now common knowledge that the department for business, which after all is responsible for science policy and provides the funds for the UK-wide research councils, is going to have to make further cuts of about £100 million a year, possibly from the science spending, as a result of its strategy to deal with a big hole in its finances. Surely we should have learnt by now that the existence of even more uncertainty around the future of science spending will be as damaging as before, because universities, research groups and others will not be able to do proper forward planning.
The irony of all this is that the black hole in the BIS finances stems from a greater than planned growth in student loans as a result of the failure to plan for and to control student numbers on programmes, particularly HNDs and HNCs, offered by private providers. I would be grateful if, when the Minister comes to speak, he would shed light on whether there are to be further cuts to the previously announced figures. That will be an important factor.
I would like to end on a further point. Are not the cuts, if they are made, going to be to the science budget, which applies on the basis of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England? The devolved territories of course fund their students on a different basis. Therefore, the irony we have is that problems in English student financing are going to affect the UK science budget as a whole. The idea of robbing a UK-wide science budget to pay for English mistakes would seem particularly odd at a time when we approach the devolution settlement.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may first thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and indeed those who have supported the inquiry both here today and through their work in committee. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its report and for raising this important issue. In doing so, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in introducing and initiating the debate. I thank him for his chairmanship of the committee and align myself totally with the comments he made in thanking others who contributed, as I also do with the comments made by noble friend Lord Selborne.
As the committee has recognised, scientific infrastructure plays a key role in maintaining the UK’s reputation for research excellence. Our high-quality facilities attract world-class researchers, attract investment from around the world, and enable research projects that support the wealth and welfare of the nation. That is a point which most noble Lords acknowledged, and indeed most have also welcomed the Government’s positive response. Until my noble friend Lord Jenkin got to his feet I thought I would be in the welcome but rare position of a Government Minister responding at the Dispatch Box having heard nothing but praise for the Government’s position. One is fully aware that sometimes some of the most robust questioning one gets is from one’s own side, and that has been true today.
It is right that we recognise, as all noble Lords have done, that UK research has a strong international reputation for the quality and range of its research facilities. However, as the committee has rightly pointed out, keeping up in the global race means maintaining that lead into the 2020s and beyond—a point that was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. That is why, despite tight controls over public spending, we have continued to protect the science ring-fence in cash terms for 2015-16. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last summer an investment of £1.1 billion a year in science and research infrastructure, thus protecting and not cutting funding in real terms to 2020-21. That means that overall BIS investment in science and research will reach £5.8 billion in cash terms for 2015-16, an increase in the overall allocation compared with recent years. I can therefore reassure noble Lords that we are fully committed to our world-class UK research base and the scientific infrastructure that supports it.
I shall now explain the steps being taken to implement some of the key recommendations and address some of the concerns and questions that have been raised about the strategy. The ball was set rolling on that by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I turn to the long-term strategy for capital investment by taking a strategic approach to science and research capital investment, a point made by several noble Lords. The report recommends that the Government should produce,
“a long-term strategy and underpinning investment plan for scientific infrastructure”.
Our unprecedented long-term capital investment provides an ideal opportunity to take a strategic view of our science and research infrastructure and consider where we should prioritise investment over the coming years. That is why, as has been acknowledged by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on 25 April the Chancellor and the Minister for science launched a consultation to identify the strategic priorities for long-term science and research capital investment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked me a question about budgets. There can be no better illustration of the Government’s intent in terms of joined-up thinking than the fact that the announcement was made jointly by my right honourable friend the Chancellor and the Minister for science. That demonstrates the long-term commitment and support of the Treasury.
The consultation will feed into a science capital road map that will set out the Government’s long-term vision for world-leading science and research infrastructure. The road map will be central to the science and innovation strategy, which will be published at the around the same time as the Autumn Statement. The consultation seeks evidence on two key questions to inform the development of the road map. First, what balance should we strike between meeting capital requirements at the individual research project and institution level relative to the need for large-scale investments at national and international levels? Secondly, what should be the UK’s priorities for large-scale capital investments in the national interest, including collaborating on international projects? That point was made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
The strength and breadth of excellent research in the UK generates a huge range of potential investment opportunities. Despite the Government’s unprecedented investment in science capital, demand will inevitably outstrip funding. Priorities identified through the consultation will therefore be used to inform strategic judgments made in the science capital road map. The committee report also recommends that the scientific infrastructure strategy should take into account local and regional benefits, the importance of national and regional connectivity, and the wider facilitation of access for users. I shall return to the point about access and connectivity in a moment, but for now I would stress that the capital consultation is a UK-wide consultation which informs a UK-wide investment programme. Our strategy will recognise the important regional benefits of science capital investment, but investment will remain on the basis of scientific excellence and national need.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked a specific question on the ministerial advisory group. The answer is that, yes, it is as per the committee report; the structure has been set up and the group will be chaired accordingly, so the Minister will not chair it. The group will report to him. The Government have accepted the committee recommendation of a time-limited ad hoc advisory group to advise specifically on the development of the long-term strategy on scientific infrastructure. The group, whose terms of reference have been broadened to look across the entire science and innovation landscape, will advise Ministers on how the Government respond to the capital consultation and help to inform the science capital road map. The group met for the first time in April and is chaired, as recommended by the committee, by the BIS director-general of knowledge and innovation. Membership of the group, as several noble Lords acknowledged, includes representatives from the research councils, national academies, higher education funding bodies, industry and charities.
I now turn to the issue of sustainability and operational cost, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, and the issue of greater alignment between capital investment and operational costs. The Government recognise that sustainability is a critical criterion in identifying capital investment priorities. Full consideration needs to taken of both operational costs and the research costs of using the infrastructure to its maximum potential, while of course being mindful of the need to balance capital intensive research with other potential calls on resource funding.
That is why the capital consultation is seeking advice on the sustainability of capital investments, including the underpinning operational costs. To address some of the concerns flagged by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, we hope to end the regime of, as she put it, blowing hot and cold on funding decisions. The consultation sets out long-term sustainability on that basis. While capital budgets have been set to 2021, science and research resource budgets, as with all other areas of government resource spending, will be considered as part of the 2015 spending review. The consultation will inform the science capital road map and identify priorities for future funding.
The committee is also right to highlight the benefits of equipment sharing. Equipment sharing can be instrumental in creating concentrations of research activity between universities and within industry; it can increase efficiency by reducing the number of items that need to be purchased and obtaining higher load factors on existing items; and it enables capital items that are too large for an individual institution to be purchased. Many universities and those in the research community are already actively engaged in facilitating equipment sharing, and a number of regional alliances of universities benefit from shared registers of research equipment. The challenge is to build on this strong position by facilitating even more collaboration and equipment sharing.
I turn to some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords that I have not yet had a chance to answer. The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Chesterton, raised issues about infrastructure building, international collaboration and service provision, and spoke of how local economies can benefit from international positioning. This is fully acknowledged by the Government. Science is an increasingly global endeavour, which means identifying UK priorities for capital investment in science and research. Two major international projects have recently been identified for investment: the Square Kilometre Array and the International Space Station exploitation programme. I agree with the sentiments expressed by various noble Lords in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked specific questions about apprenticeships and the skill levels being reached. The apprenticeship and trailblazer schemes announced by the Government work in partnership with employers to ensure that the apprenticeships being made available are in line with what is being demanded by employers. On the specific figures which the noble Baroness asked for, perhaps I could write to her and copy in all noble Lords who have participated today. The noble Baroness also asked about consultation on international projects. Again, I shall write to her on her specific questions.
My noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the Natural Environment Research Council. The NERC is considering how to secure the long-term future of its research centres and the national interest they serve. No decision has been made to privatise these centres. The NERC is committed to maintaining and curating environmental data records and ensuring their widest possible use for research and wider societal benefit. This is an important consideration in evaluating potential options for the centres.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding that capital investment in nuclear research and development is not excluded from the Government’s strategic approach to scientific infrastructure. As recommended by the committee, our science capital road map will take a comprehensive look at the scientific infrastructure needs of the UK. Strategic priorities for investment will be informed by our consultation on long-term science and research capital investment. It includes as a potential project a proposed £60 million investment to extend the capabilities of the National Nuclear User Facility. As part of the consultation process, the Government would welcome views on any further opportunities for capital investment in nuclear R&D which were not identified in the consultation document.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, spoke about the need for international working and the role of the private sector. We need to encourage further projects like MedCity, an initiative of the London mayor which is modelled on the Tech City Investment Organisation. MedCity is a strategic promotional agency for life sciences in the London, Oxford and Cambridge triangle. It will seek investment in the sector from around the world, provide a coherent voice to Governments and the EU, and identify gaps in the triangle’s offer and fill them by bringing together key players from across all sectors.
I believe that I have answered most of the questions asked by noble Lords—I have not ignored Pfizer, which I will come to at the end. Perhaps I may mention a few of the ad hoc and capital projects that have been announced: the M3 space mission, PLATO, and the polar research ship. The UK’s intention to invest in the former was announced in March 2014 and its intention to invest in the latter was announced on 25 April 2014. These projects, two of which I have cited, are where we are working alongside other partners—international partners and delivery partners. The UK Space Agency is working with the European Space Agency and our delivery partners for the new polar research vessel are also of an international scope. If you look at the European Spallation Source, the delivery partners include Sweden, Denmark and other European partners. These announcements were made to honour the international commitments that were required in ensuring that we could also play our part in these projects. The UK Government are fully aware of the importance of playing a partnership role not just in Europe but globally.
Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Stevenson, raised the issue of Pfizer and AstraZeneca. When I was preparing for this debate, I said to my wife, “I think this one may come up”. Indeed, she had to endure part of the proceedings, as did my two year-old son, as the Pfizer chief executive was scrutinised by the committee in the other place today. I am not sure what my son made of it. I will outline the Government’s position. I can assure all noble Lords that the Government’s absolute priority in this matter is to secure great British science, research, innovation and manufacturing jobs in the life sciences sector. We are focused on what is best for the UK and that is clear in the consistent message we have sent to both Pfizer and AstraZeneca. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been no formal bid by Pfizer for AstraZeneca. Clearly, responding to any bid would be a matter for the respective boards and shareholders of the two companies. However, the Government’s position is clear that in any proposal that is put forward, UK interests must be consistent and prioritised.
This debate has been reflective of the tremendous work that the committee has carried out in this most important area, which is about securing the long-term future of science and research in this country. We have challenged the research community to match our greater investment with greater collaboration, better equipment sharing and improved access for industry, making the nation’s science even more accessible and efficient. We have also commissioned Sir Ian Diamond to work with universities, research councils, HEFCE and others to look further at how, working together, we can make the most of science capital funding by ensuring that researchers have access to state-of-the-art research equipment.
Finally, it remains for me to thank all those who have participated today and to thank once again the members of the committee for their valuable work. I hope that noble Lords are assured that the recommendations of this report have been taken very seriously by Her Majesty’s Government; indeed, many recommendations have been acted upon already. The Government’s long-term commitment to invest in science and research capital is evidence of our belief that scientific infrastructure is vital to the success of our world-class UK research base.
On a personal note, I was involved with one of the international visits a couple of weeks ago by a delegation from Pakistan. I spoke on behalf of David Willetts at the launch of the Lahore Knowledge Park, which is a way of enabling a developing country to look forward in terms of developing its research capabilities. One of the key things the Pakistanis are keen to do is to work with our research base, which again demonstrates its reputation on the global stage. As recommended by the committee, we will ensure that the UK makes the most of this unprecedented opportunity by identifying strategic priorities for long-term capital investment.
Lord Krebs
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been extraordinarily well informed and at a very high level of sophistication. I also thank the Minister for his very detailed response, covering, I think, all the points that were raised in the debate. I do not wish to dwell on the conclusions. I think we all recognise the importance of scientific infrastructure for the long-term health of the country, both economically and in terms of well-being. We recognise that the Government have made a commitment. The key words for me, which have recurred several times—and I was delighted to hear the Minister reiterate them on several occasions—are “long term”. This is not just about the next five years; this is about thinking beyond 2020 into the distant future so that we can ensure that we have the right facilities to support our scientists to deliver world-class research, as they have done in the past and I am sure they will do in the future.
Crime: Domestic Violence
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to criminalise a pattern of behaviour, psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence cases.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to bring forward this debate for the Grand Committee. The essence of the Question is whether here in the UK we have a legal framework that fully and adequately captures the nature and harm that is domestic violence, and I am genuinely asking whether a more comprehensive criminal law is required to close the gap between the current response and the long-term oppression and suffering of victimised women and children. I thank all those who have put down their names to speak in the debate.
Too many women have already lost their lives and more will continue to do so if we fail to understand coercive control as the dangerous behaviour that it is and to recognise the serious emotional harm that is caused to the victims of domestic violence. I would like to start by asking the Minister some questions about the current state of affairs. Since coercive control and psychological abuse were included in the March 2013 domestic violence definition, which of course I welcome, how many prosecutions have made use of this definition? How many convictions have there been for coercive control and psychological abuse since coercive control was included in the definition? How many prosecutions have there been under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for causing alarm and distress in domestic violence cases where the victim and perpetrator are still in an ongoing relationship? The important question that needs to be answered here is whether the Minister thinks that the law is working as well as it should. That is because we need to know if the existing framework, and indeed the support that needs to be wrapped around it, is working effectively, and thus whether the law on domestic abuse needs to be further strengthened.
We know that domestic abuse is very complex and involves many forms of behaviour. Some victims say that the psychological abuse and control they suffer at the hands of their partner is “the worst part”. What are the Minister’s thoughts on this and the possibility that the current legislative framework fails to recognise it? The experts in this field, Women’s Aid and the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service, both say that there is a criminalisation gap which ensures that the pattern of domestic violence and control remains outside the reach of the existing criminal law, which prohibits only discrete incidents of physical injury. This is an appropriate debate because the office of the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner is today hosting a conference with criminal justice partners to discuss what is and what is not working in this area. There have been workshops with victims of domestic violence and the discussion of issues such as early intervention.
In March 2013, the Government changed the definition of domestic violence to include coercively controlling behaviour, which is very welcome. However, non-physical abuse, although integral to the ongoing exercise of violent control, seems to be disregarded and thus tacitly condoned. Put simply, the law does not conceive of many women in abusive intimate relationships as being the victims of ongoing abuse. By criminalising this form of violence and having specialist legislation, similar to the stalking law introduced in 2012, would this send a message that abusive and coercively controlling behaviour within a relationship is as unacceptable as physical violence and that it will not be tolerated?
Paladin has formed a partnership with Women’s Aid and the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation. They have carried out research, which has brought them to the conclusion that this criminalisation gap should be closed. They feel that the laws used to prosecute domestic violence—which include assault, burglary, property, breach of a restraining order, rape, kidnapping and murder—do not describe its essence. Patterns of power and control are missed. It misses the fact that domestic violence is about fear, coercive control and continuing acts. The totality of the behaviour and the non-physical manifestations of power and control that define an abusive relationship do real harm to victims and are not recognised in criminal law.
Interestingly, it is only after separation that the very same behaviour which was exerted in the relationship—control—is then criminalised: we call it stalking. Therefore the moment after a break-up becomes legally meaningful, separation, can be the most dangerous time for women. Of course, this is also very expensive. As far as I can tell, the figures from 2009 suggest that domestic violence costs the Government over £16 billion per year.
The question this debate raises is whether the law needs to be modernised. If we are to challenge the behaviour of perpetrators appropriately, do we need an offence that reflects the reality of domestic abuse in all its guises? According to Home Office statistics, domestic violence is more likely to result in repeat victimisation and injury than any other type of crime. However, the Crown Prosecution Service only prosecutes for a single incident and tends to focus on the injury level, while failing to take into account the course of conduct, the pattern of coercive controlling behaviour, and fear as a measure of harm. As a direct result, the seriousness of the pattern of abuse is not identified or understood, women become entrapped, abuse and rape become normalised, and no one goes to prison without injuries being present.
As we know, many women do not report until behaviour has escalated and there may be injuries, and for many that comes too late. Research by Women’s Aid indicates that the majority of women only report violence to the police after it has been going on for between six months and five years. When they do report it, each episode is treated as an isolated incident and, therefore, often as a low-level misdemeanour. That results in very few perpetrators being held to account for the totality of their behaviour. Therefore, is it surprising that victims struggle to understand why the full impact of their experiences cannot be taken into account by police and prosecutors? We have to ask: does the absence of such a crime undermine the victims of abuse and collude with perpetrators, as many of their acts go unseen and unchallenged?
The research I mentioned already, the Victim’s Voice survey, which was published in March, showed that 98% of victims were subjected to controlling, domineering or demeaning behaviours in their relationship. I will mention just a few of those behaviours: isolation from friends, family and colleagues; removal of all communications devices; food being withheld as well as use of the toilet; control of what the victim should wear, how they should style their hair and where they can work; stalking by means of tracking and following; deliberate sleep deprivation; threats of sexual abuse or rape; and threats to harm or kill children and/or pets. I could go on.
When asked if those behaviours had been taken into account by the police, 88% said that they had not. Clearly, we have an issue here. One of the issues is of course whether the police are dealing with the framework that already exists, and how that works. Certainly on this side of the Room, Labour would establish an independent commissioner for domestic and sexual violence to champion victims’ voices and drive improvements, starting with national standards for the delivery of services and training as recommended by ACPO.
However, is it true that the police are often big on words and developing policy which is then not delivered as regards either action or a true understanding of the issue? Do we think that there is a problem there? Too many times the woman who is murdered or badly hurt has been begging the police to provide protection and deal with her abuser. Too often the same victims are calling for protection from the same perpetrators, and time and again opportunities to intervene and protect families are missed.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this debate. I will speak briefly from two perspectives: first, as people might expect, as a former police officer; and secondly, as people might not expect, as a victim of domestic violence in the past.
Despite the negative media attention surrounding the recent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary report Everyone’s Business: Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse, it did highlight some good work carried out by, for example, the Metropolitan Police, an organisation of which I have 30 years’ experience—some of it not good. When I was a constable in the 1970s, we were told that domestic violence was the last thing that we should get involved with, as victims of domestic violence, once they had been patched up in casualty, invariably wanted to go back to their abusive partners and declined to assist the police with any prosecution.
I could not fully understand the mentality of these victims until I became a victim of domestic violence myself. My relationship started normally and lovingly but, imperceptibly, the coercive control and emotional abuse gradually took over. Sometimes something told you that things were not right: my partner’s tearing up of a birthday card from a friend which he thought was from a secret lover, for example; overly and unreasonably jealous behaviour, such as searching the contacts on my mobile phone and refusing to believe that “Bruno” was actually my boss’s official driver and not someone I was having an affair with; allowing me to go out for the night only for me to find that he was following me; and, almost inevitably, eventually a violent attack in the street. Even then, it was only when I was on a residential training course and began to talk to a female colleague that I realised that, however much I loved this individual, it was an abusive and dysfunctional relationship. Luckily for me, the violence was not serious. For too many others, mainly women, it can be fatal.
A decade or so ago, work was done in the Metropolitan Police to identify patterns of behaviour that led to domestic murder. It showed that a pattern of behaviour was established, starting with verbal abuse and coercive control, emotional abuse and then physical violence, tragically culminating in such murders. Officers were then instructed that, when attending domestic violence incidents, they should look out for such patterns in order to identify where victims were particularly vulnerable. This work was developed into a risk assessment tool by Laura Richards, initially in the Metropolitan Police, and then by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and is now widely used and known as DASH. I say “widely used”, but Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that it was inconsistently applied and that the police had to be consistent in their approach to domestic violence.
Interestingly, similar patterns of escalating behaviour were identified by the probation service in its report on working with racist offenders published in 1998, where the title of the report encapsulates this sort of progression: From Murmur to Murder. The report highlighted what could happen if racist behaviour was left unchallenged. There are direct parallels here, where unacceptable behaviour in a domestic setting can and tragically does escalate to violence and, all too frequently, to murder. Despite the research, the experience and the good work by some police forces, because such non-physical abuse, coercive control and emotional abuse are not considered by most police forces to be criminal offences, there is little the police or other agencies actually do until, tragically, in many cases, it is too late to prevent serious assaults or even deaths.
My understanding of the law as it stands is that if a stranger carried out the sort of non-physical abuse I suffered, he could be guilty of the criminal offences of harassment and stalking; but if I was in a relationship with that individual, he would be not be considered guilty of any criminal offence. That cannot be right. If my former partner had known that such behaviour did amount to a criminal offence, he might have thought twice about it. If I had known that such behaviour was a criminal offence, that might have helped me to redress the power imbalance in that relationship and helped me prevent the behaviour escalating into violence.
Although I have talked today about my own experience of same-sex domestic violence, the biggest issue is violence against women by men. I believe that the Government may be bringing forward legislation in the Queen’s Speech to extend the definition of child abuse to include psychological as well as physical harm. Legislation to criminalise patterns of behaviour that amount to psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence cases would not only help prevent further violent attacks but help save the lives of some of the more than 100 women a year in this country who die at the hands of men who they are or have been in a relationship with.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I valued the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Her comments about the present situation were clear and detailed, and I strongly support her case that there should be a detailed consideration of criminalising this issue.
My reason for speaking is that I was involved with these issues quite a long time ago when I was the UK representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. At that time, when I had to make a speech for the UK, of course I had to seek permission but I said, “I would like to admit that we have domestic violence in the UK”. It was agreed that I could make that statement, and it had a dramatic effect because we were the first nation ever to make a statement in the UN admitting to having domestic violence. All the tiny countries that had suffered from similar things for years and years suddenly felt unafraid to speak out on the issue. That was really quite important and brought it out into the open.
Things have moved on a long way but everything takes a long time to move on, whatever field you are in. What the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said was very interesting. The one category that neither he nor the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned was the men who are attacked by women. That is the one missing group, and they do exist. Over tea in your Lordships’ House, someone said to me, “Be sure not to forget the number of men who are attacked by women”. This should not be overlooked. This same criminal law should apply to anyone. There should not be violence.
I was asked to go to Brazil, where they were rewriting the constitution and were writing a section on women. Bella Abzug, the very famous American Congresswoman—the first woman to stand up and demand that Nixon be impeached—was there. She is famous for that; she is also famous for creating the Ms title instead of Miss or Mrs. She said, “Why do I have to define what I am when the other side does not have to?”. She told me that the American constitution had just two lines that covered everything for women, making life and opportunities equal and everything else, whereas as the meeting went on the Brazilians became more and more determined to make it wider and wider. Lots of people were there representing Brazil, rather than the one or two who represented other countries. I made my speech and said, “Listening to this, I get the impression we want to abolish men entirely. That is not what I believe”. Over lunch, the interpreter said to me, “We thanked heaven when you made that statement”, because it was getting to the point where it had become quite unrealistic.
Turning to the more realistic side in Brazil, we were taken to see the São Paulo police facilities; we did not see the prison but just heard about it. They told us that they had special care and special treatment for women who had suffered domestic violence. This was in the early 1980s, long before any such thing was thought of here. Indeed, people came from all over the world to see how effective the Brazilian system was. Fortunately, we have seen a lot of this change now and people are treated better. Particularly after rape cases they were very helpful, and it is a terrible time for anyone.
Those were the days when Erin Pizzey was running a refuge and Sandra Horley was very involved in helping women. Of course, domestic violence did not affect just the women themselves because they often had children who needed refuge as well. The women had to face the problem of finding new school places for their children and it could be very difficult. However, at least there were people to help them.
I turn now to coercive behaviour, which is much better known about today. I think that it is every bit as bad as physical abuse. People live in fear of what will happen. They do not feel that they possess the right to do what they want to do in life because they are controlled by others. That is not good because fear can destroy people’s lives. We have to deal with this issue. I know that in March 2013 the Home Office changed the definition of coercive behaviour, but the law has not been changed to match it. That is what is being asked for in this Question, and I am very much in favour of it.
In many ways these issues have been in the public domain for longer than I had realised. Dickens wrote about how abusive Bill Sikes was to Nancy in Oliver Twist, so these things are on the record, even though they were not really topics for public discussion. I have heard that a major Home Office conference is to be held on 22 July that will cover female genital mutilation, forced early marriage and domestic violence. It is to the credit of Theresa May that she is bringing forward such a conference, which I think will be welcomed by everyone.
I end by saying that there is a time lag between awareness and action. We are all aware of these things, and now it is time to take action.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, as is so often the case, I share the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I do not agree with her means. The problem I have with the Question she has raised for debate is that it presupposes that the important way of tackling what is referred to as,
“a pattern of behaviour, psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence cases”
is through the introduction of more criminal law. Apart from minor exceptions, I do not agree with that. We have plenty of criminal law to cover these issues, and we have plenty of civil law, including the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, covering both civil and criminal litigation, and what we put into the Equality Act 2010 in the form of civil law on sexual harassment. There is a great mass of law.
The problem with relying on the criminal law is illustrated by what has happened with FGM. The practice was criminalised many years ago, but until very recently no prosecutions had been brought. Why is that? It is because, first, the victims are inhibited from coming forward. There is the whole business of not dishonouring the family. Secondly, the police are hardly the best people to rely upon to take up these extremely complicated and difficult family issues. Thirdly, the burden of proof is criminal. Fourthly, the mode of trial is criminal and it is normally held in public. There are all kinds of reasons why the use of criminal law can be ineffective.
I learnt all this when I was dealing with forced marriage. The Labour Government had quite rightly rejected the notion of criminalising forced marriage, so I decided to plug the gap by inventing a civil protection that would use the family courts to deal with the victims. It has worked extremely well. Many cases have been brought in which alleged forced marriages or attempted forced marriages have been prevented by the family courts. Article 37 of the Istanbul convention, which I hope the Minister will indicate the Government intend promptly to ratify, says of forced marriage that:
“Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the intentional conduct of forcing an adult or a child to enter into a marriage is criminalised”.
I was hesitant when I saw that. It is one thing to use the criminal law when there is a breach of a court order—a forced marriage protection order, for example—but it is quite another matter to create a free-standing crime. That is problematic because it may deter very young children—boys and girls—women and men from coming forward with their complaints of gross malpractice, for fear of dishonouring their families. Although this is not really for this debate, I hope that, after the Government have ratified the Istanbul convention, and after we have thought about the legislation to do that, we will ensure that the criminal process is only used when the civil process cannot give an effective remedy.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has heard a great deal of evidence from the fundamental rights agency about its massive survey of all the EU member states. It has produced a huge report, and it looked in particular at the UK. In no part of that report has the agency suggested there is any need for more criminal law. I agree with that. Instead, the evidence I have heard so far indicates the importance of a wide range of other measures. If she will forgive me, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, had said “tackle” instead of using the word “criminalise”. If she had asked what plans the Government have to tackle this pattern, one could have looked beyond the criminal law—for example, at the role of the health service in identifying and supporting victims of violence against women and children. One could have looked at training doctors and healthcare providers to look for physical and psychological signs of domestic violence, such as signs of controlling behaviour. That is important, because women come into contact with doctors and other healthcare providers more regularly than they would with the police or specialised services.
So far as the UK is concerned, the fundamental rights agency has recommended the need in this country to increase awareness of violence against women and children, to provide training for perpetrators, and the importance of focusing on bullying and harassment in schools. We need workable legislation; we broadly have that. We need to ratify the Istanbul convention. We need a comprehensive action programme, because one in three women is affected by domestic violence. That is a comprehensive problem, needing a comprehensive solution. We need to deal with new technologies that enable cyberstalking and harassment, misogynistic hate mail and so on. However, we should not focus just on reporting to the police, but on reporting to doctors and healthcare workers, on dealing with violence in childhood and on the impact experienced in adulthood resulting from that.
I agree with the aim, but as I say, I do not agree with the means. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will be able to say that the Government have no plans to further criminalise in this field, except in very exceptional areas where a real gap can be found. To do so would hamper the means of dealing with domestic violence, rather than promoting them.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for raising this important issue. I thank the Home Secretary for prioritising it, for commissioning the HMIC review that looked into the police response to domestic violence, and indeed for acting on it by chairing the new national oversight group.
Domestic violence is a real concern. It affects so many of us. On average, the police are contacted every 30 seconds for assistance with related incidents. In my home county of Essex, for example, I am proud that our PCC, Nick Alston, has identified domestic abuse as a top priority in the Essex police and crime plan, after figures showed that more than 3,600 offences were recorded between April and September last year, including three women killed in their own homes. This equates to 20 such crimes reported in Essex each and every day.
As Mr Alston has said:
“Too often the front line is the front room. We surely can’t accept this level of harm. I want to work across communities to create an environment where domestic abuse is not tolerated and where our children and young people grow up to recognise the value of healthy relationships”.
Essex residents have welcomed the newly constituted Essex Domestic Abuse Strategy Board, chaired by the PCC, which has representation from across all the agencies that have a role to play in tackling domestic abuse, including the police, councils, probation, prosecution authorities and health. This new board is overseeing an ambitious programme of work in supporting victims, tackling perpetrators and, most importantly, working to prevent domestic abuse happening in the first place. I congratulate Mr Alston on this initiative and urge other PCCs to follow the example.
The reality is that the crime is embedded within the perpetrator’s need to exert power and control over their victim. As such, the abuser will often use a combination of psychological abuse, coercive control as well as physical abuse to create real fear in order to contain their victims—as we have heard already in this debate. However, as we have also heard, psychological abuse, coercive control and a pattern of abuse are not criminalised, sometimes allowing perpetrators to evade the law. This puts real pressure on the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and other agencies when tackling the issue, as they do not always appear to have the right tools to do so.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, pointed out, in March last year the Home Office changed the definition of domestic violence to include,
“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive … behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality”.
I thank the Home Secretary and welcome the change as it depicts the fundamental nature of the crime. Currently, the state cannot effectively intervene, nor translate and consequently penalise the crime before the abuse has escalated, leading to current or former partners killing two women every week.
Statistics show that women experience between 30 and 40 incidents before they have the courage to pick up the phone and dial 999. I do not know whether it is declaring an interest, but as corroboration of this statistic, I can tell your Lordships that I have a close relation who was physically and psychologically abused by her husband for nearly 30 years, without any of us being aware, before it was finally brought to the attention of the police and he was prosecuted. According to research, 53% of men whose cases are reported to police in the UK have been reported for at least three other assaults against their partner. However, even if a victim does report, unless there is physical evidence of assault there is little that can be done. As a victim of abuse explained in a Victim’s Voice survey conducted by the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation:
“Currently it’s too easy for abusers to get away with it because they know that if there is insufficient physical evidence of assault they will not be convicted. In my case, my abuser didn’t feel the need to physically hurt me very often because the emotional and psychological abuse kept me ‘under control’. It transpired that the police knew exactly what he was like, (I was by no means his first victim), but there was mostly no official crime he could be charged with. Consequently, he was pretty much free to behave exactly as he pleased, safe in the knowledge that unless he left visible marks on any of his victims, there was nothing anyone could do”.
We—or should I say the taxpayer?—currently spend £15.7 billion a year on the symptoms of domestic violence, but we should also focus further on its eradication. We need to be able to target perpetrators effectively through our legal system, ensuring that government spending is focused on where it is lacking and creating an effective cross-agency response to this epidemic.
The courts are bound by current laws, which can prosecute only for single incidents of violence. Without being able to see the true pattern of violence and without an offence that is fit for purpose, the courts are unable to ascertain the real threat that the perpetrator’s course of conduct poses to a victim and consequently are unable to impose the appropriate sentences. As another victim in the Victim’s Voice survey wrote:
“Why should we have to suffer in silence? The only way I could finally get away was to arrange everything in secret and be absolutely petrified that he was going to find out before I had everything in place to be able to leave safely. I then had to go into hiding for a while so that there was no risk of backlash. If the law had been there to protect me I would have felt a lot safer and stronger to have been able to leave sooner”.
Thanks to the welcome stalking law reform brought in by the Government, a course of conduct that constitutes psychological abuse and control has been criminalised. However, the law protects those who experience these behaviours only once they have left the relationship. Should this protection now be extended to those who suffer such abuse within the relationship?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I am grateful to the domestic violence law reform campaign team, the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation, Women’s Aid and Paladin for their briefing for this debate and for their continued campaigning for this change. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and hope that he and the Home Secretary will consider the points made in today’s debate.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Refuge has been mentioned, so perhaps I should declare an interest as a past chair. I learnt a great deal from Sandra Horley.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will for ever haunt me, perhaps break my spirit and even my mind. The impact of non-physical behaviour is often less evident to other people. “How did you get that bruise?” “Oh, silly me, I walked into a door that I didn’t see was open”—not “I didn’t understand and escape the dynamics of a dysfunctional relationship”. Both are manifestations of controlling behaviour, as other noble Lords have said, and have a great deal in common, including the ever present fear of when it will break out, reducing the victim’s capacity to cope with it, being demeaned and diminished.
It is not just words, though. The briefing which we have received from the organisations just mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington listed relevant behaviours. Reading that list, I thought, “Where have I seen some of these before?”, such as sleep deprivation and the use of extreme stressors such as rape. There are a number of behaviours in this list which, if they were undertaken by someone in an official capacity, could well be regarded as torture under international law.
Domestic violence has risen up the public consciousness but, as the HMIC report said, the overall police response is not good enough. It talked about it being a priority on paper but, in the majority of forces, not in practice. One of the factors identified was officers lacking skills and knowledge. It is easy to understand how much more straightforward it is to identify a single act of physical brutality than insidious and brutal courses of conduct, still less when this is not immediately evident with a physical outcome. I do not underestimate the problems of evidence, and I agree with quite a lot—not everything—that my noble friend Lord Lester said, particularly about the use of the existing law. Let us use what we have got unless it is clearly inadequate. The work on stalking the year before last indicated that there was an inadequacy, and led to a change in law. However, if it is not inadequate then I for one am not enthusiastic about some sort of duplication. However, having conduct identified and tagged as criminal is very important, as my noble friend Lord Paddick has said.
One of the recommendations of the HMIC report was about the views of victims as an essential element in monitoring police effectiveness. The report said that the Home Office should ensure that the views of victims of domestic abuse are incorporated routinely and consistently into national monitoring arrangements. I ask my noble friend the Minister—if he cannot answer it today perhaps he could write; one has picked this up in thinking about it and he may well not have a briefing on it—how are the views of victims to be included in the monitoring process if they do not report? How do you find the victims? How do you get at their views?
One of the things that have helped raise awareness over a period of perhaps 20 years is when victims’ experiences are made real in fiction through popular culture. Those of us whose soap of choice is “The Archers” are witnessing one character’s charm turning into control at the moment. I congratulate those who work in the media and who bravely—because this is not always welcome—include such storylines. However, all this is important, not just for raising general public awareness but because it gives victims the confidence to identify, recognise and articulate that what they are suffering is not normal; it is abuse, and it is a crime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I conclude this very useful debate by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for the clarity with which she has presented the debate to us today, and for giving us the chance to consider a matter in which all of us here are interested. I think we all agree that domestic abuse is an unacceptable crime that shatters lives, and one that the Government are committed to tackling. That has been widely shared by all speakers. I am determined to see a society where violence against women and girls is not tolerated, and where domestic violence generally is not tolerated. As my noble friend Lord Paddick very courageously pointed out, this is not confined to conventional heterosexual relationships but can occur within any relationship, and it is wrong wherever it happens.
I want to be absolutely clear: abusive behaviour in the home is the worst violation of the trust that those in close relationships place in one another. Such behaviour is already criminal. The fact that it takes place behind closed doors does not make it any less serious—quite the reverse. This Government have expanded the non-statutory definition of “domestic abuse” to include coercive and controlling behaviour. The definition complements a wide range of statutory offences that encompass domestic violence and abuse. The Government have also introduced stalking legislation, which, alongside harassment offences, can apply equally to those in relationships by criminalising a course of conduct. Therefore, a course of conduct can reinforce particular cases presented. Behaviours captured by this framework include the type of subversive abuse that has been highlighted today, such as deploying threats, damaging property, controlling someone’s manner of dress or preventing them seeking medical assistance. In a way, I agree with my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Hamwee that the legal framework is sufficient. However, I will go on to explain how there are deficiencies in the way that it is used.
The framework is enhanced by sentencing guidelines that make it clear that an offence committed in a domestic setting should be seen as more serious. Among the aggravating factors highlighted by the guidelines are abuse of trust, abuse of power and a proven history of violence or threats in a domestic setting by the perpetrator. The cumulative impact of these guidelines is that courts are entitled to impose stiffer penalties on perpetrators of domestic abuse than on others who commit equivalent crimes where a domestic relationship is not involved. It is critical that the police and prosecutors build cases that incorporate those factors to ensure that sentences are commensurate with the offending behaviour. That is what Parliament has willed, through its legislation in this area and through the debates we have had. I will return to that point when we talk about Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the existing legal tools are used to provide access to justice for victims of domestic abuse. This is demonstrated by our announcements that we will roll out two new legal remedies for the police: domestic violence protection orders and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which is commonly known as Clare’s law. That is why we have continued the specialist domestic violence courts—SDVC—programme, which is an essential combined-agency approach. All noble Lords would understand that this is frequently a combined-agency area, and a combined-agency approach to tackling domestic violence is important.
On my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes’s point, it is absolutely right that we also consider male victims of domestic abuse. All our policy initiatives are gender-neutral in recognising what domestic abuse means. We have also listened to those campaigners who have been clear that new laws and processes are not sufficient in themselves and that the way in which the police respond to abuse more widely needs to be addressed. The Government agree that it is critical that front-line agencies respond to domestic abuse using the full extent of the law. In September last year, the Home Secretary commissioned HMIC to review the police response to domestic abuse because she was concerned that it was not as good as it should be. HMIC reported its findings on 27 March, and I am sure that the Grand Committee will agree with me that the report made for very worrying reading. We agree that transparency is important, and that is why the Home Secretary commissioned HMIC to review the police response, and is now chairing a national oversight group which will issue quarterly reports, so we can expect progress reports on a regular basis.
Every 30 seconds, a victim of domestic abuse summons up the courage to call the police. What was the figure—that it takes 40 incidents before somebody reaches that point? This is the measure of what we are dealing with. When a victim reaches out for help it is vital that the police are equipped to respond effectively and end a cycle of abuse that in many cases will have been going on for years. Quite simply, the police response to domestic abuse at the moment is not good enough.
On the day that HMIC published its report, the Home Secretary wrote to chief constables and police force leads on domestic abuse, making clear her expectation that, in line with HMIC’s recommendations, each force will have a plan in place by September to improve its response to domestic violence and abuse. The Home Secretary has also committed to chairing the national oversight group I have mentioned to lead immediate improvement. The group has a clear and specific mandate to monitor delivery against each of the HMIC recommendations. The Home Secretary will issue quarterly reports, as I have said. The Government will ensure that these important recommendations do not become yesterday’s news. This is a live issue.
In considering the case for new laws to criminalise patterns of abuse and control, it is critical that we look closely at HMIC’s findings. I would like to take this opportunity to draw out a few key points from the report. HMIC have found that the following factors are contributing to the poor police response: a lack of visible leadership and clear direction set by senior officers; alarming and unacceptable weaknesses in some core policing activity, in particular the collection of evidence by officers at the scene of domestic abuse incidents; poor management and supervision that fails to reinforce the right behaviours, attitudes and actions of officers; failure to prioritise action that will tackle domestic abuse when setting the priorities for the day-to-day activity of front-line officers and assigning their work; officers lacking the skills and knowledge necessary to engage confidently and competently with victims of domestic abuse; and extremely limited systematic feedback from victims about their experience of the police response.
I respect my noble friend Lord Paddick’s experience as a police officer and I fully understand the demands that all of us are placing on the police at this time, but his speech was a graphic illustration of the sort of abuse that leads to violence. We need to encourage the police to take those early signs seriously before violence occurs.
These failings are not about shortcomings in the law, nor is the finding that in a review of 600 actual bodily harm police files, photographs of injuries were taken in only half the cases. We do not rule out the possibility that in developing a better police response to domestic abuse, we will expose evidence that supports the need for a change in the law. But our immediate focus must be on delivering the operational change that will have an immediate impact on victims’ experience and their confidence in reporting what is happening to them.
I will deal with a few of the points that have been raised—there have been a lot of very good points, I have to say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that the Protection from Harassment Act does allow for patterns of behaviour to be taken into account. She asked me about the statistics. I cannot give her up-to-date statistics. I will write to her—in fact, I will write to all noble Lords and cover points that I would have liked to have been able to address. I am being passed notes but I am running out of time. In 2012, 58.9% of acts of harassment without violence—4,270—were flagged as domestic violence; with violence, 55.4% were flagged as domestic violence. I will give these figures in a letter because that is easier than reading them out here today.
I was asked about the Istanbul convention. The Istanbul convention goes a little bit further. We have indeed signed it. It needs ratifying. We are looking to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to provide that for us. I am grateful for the way in which my noble friends Lady Jenkin and Lady Gardner of Parkes congratulated the Home Secretary on her determination in this matter. I also thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for her comments on Nick Alston, who I happen to know and who I think is doing a great job in Essex with Be Safer Essex and Essex Change—all these groups in which the police are playing a role. Having the PCCs’ confidence could be very important to this.
What faces us is no small challenge. It is a challenge for us in politics; it is a challenge for the police themselves. I am determined that we will encourage more victims to come forward, meaning that more perpetrators will be brought to justice and more cycles of abuse will be disrupted, as we take a step closer to a society in which domestic abuse is a thing of the past.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked me the impossible question—she often does. I do not have the answer to how we get victims to report things to the police but she raised a very important question and I hope that I will be able to address it in my letter. With that, I must sit down.
Broadband and Mobile Coverage
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of their policy to increase the number of central government transactions carried out online, such as the filing of tax returns, what progress they are making with the rollout of broadband services and the provision of comprehensive mobile coverage.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, in January this year the programme was making superfast broadband available to 10,000 premises a week. The figure is now 20,000 a week, and by the summer it will be 40,000 a week. More than half a million premises have benefited so far and more than 4 million will benefit by the end of the programme. For mobile, the combination of commercial and government mobile rollout will improve mobile services for 98% of UK premises by 2015.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure things are quite as favourable as that reply suggests. Broadband and mobile coverage have become essential utilities, like water or power. Without coverage it is like living in the old world without a post box or hot water. Given the huge sums being expended on the rollout, will the Minister encourage the industry and the regulator to buck up and meet their obligations to citizens and businesses, all of whom now need to be able to operate online?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there is always room to do better, but the programmes are on track. All that can be done is being done to increase the pace of delivery, which is a priority. I should say that the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries is holding an open surgery on superfast broadband in Committee Room 14 at 3.30 pm. Your Lordships are most welcome to attend as it is very important that issues of concern are put directly to the Minister and officials dealing with the matter.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that all local authorities involved in the rollout requiring match funding are co-operating, as there were reports last weekend in some rural areas—I cite Shropshire—of Tory-led councils saying that they were not prepared to put in their £11 million of match funding? It will be disastrous for rural areas if local authorities cannot match the funding that is required.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that broadband is essential in rural and urban areas. I will look into the Shropshire issue, but it is very important that local authorities co-operate because in all areas this is part of our emphasis on growth.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is virtually impossible to function without broadband? Can he give me an example of how people are supposed to cope until this situation is corrected?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. Clearly, we are in part of the technological revolution and the Government wish to go digital, but it is certainly important that those who do not have the facility are still able to conduct business in a traditional way. As I say, it is important to improve delivery wherever we can.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
The Government’s long-awaited digital inclusion strategy appears to have given up on nearly 10% of the population. Many vital services are now online, yet many of those who need to access them are precluded from doing so. What further action will be taken to make sure that no one is left behind?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I agree with the noble Lord that the whole quest of this is to ensure that as few as possible—and, in the end, none—are left behind. That is precisely why the Government, with their £10 million project, are seeking to fund alternative technology broadband opportunities. Twenty-six suppliers have submitted bids to deal with the hardest spots that are not yet connected. The bids are currently being evaluated, and I hope that the contracts will be awarded in June so that we can help precisely those businesses and people that the noble Lord refers to.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
Does the Minister agree that infrastructure and skills are equally important and that the 11 million adults who are currently unable to use the internet, 4 million of whom are in work, are as important as those 10% who are unable to get broadband?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness absolutely hits the spot in saying that part of what we need to do is ensure that as many people as possible have the ability to go online—I gather that 82% of the population can do so. Virtually all schools have broadband connectivity and, in my experience, the elderly are becoming increasingly conversant in this area. We want to help as many people as possible.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend always tries to be helpful. Does he agree that many elderly people and many others have to pay high prices to receive paper bills because they do not have broadband available? They are sometimes charged up to £8 per paper bill. If the Government cannot help these people more quickly than at present, will they at least consider taking steps to make such charges illegal?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government wish there to be as many opportunities as possible for people to pay bills online, and that is increasingly the way that things will go. However, I will look into the matter of paper bills. I honestly think that those who are not in a position to pay online should not be expected to pay over and above.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the 98% that the Minister mentioned includes the county of Cornwall, and I congratulate him on that. However, the Isles of Scilly are not included and have probably the worst and most expensive transport links in the whole UK—and they are still on 2G. When does he see broadband going to the Isles of Scilly?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what a great part of the United Kingdom that is. It is interesting—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that the superfast Cornwall project is doing extremely well, and I am pleased to say that consultation notices have been issued by the Marine Management Organisation to ensure that the cable goes under the sea. That will ensure, I hope by the last quarter of this year, that the Isles of Scilly will have superfast broadband.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I take us from one end of the country to the other. While I warmly welcome the rollout of superfast broadband throughout the country, what words of comfort does my noble friend have for the inhabitants of Upper Coquetdale, running up to the Scottish border in Northumberland, particularly in the villages of Alnham, Alwinton, Hepple, Holystone, Netherton and Sharpeton, who have not only no broadband but no mobile coverage? They are in a “not spot” and there are no plans for them to get out of it yet.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is yet another wonderful part of the United Kingdom. I am very conscious of the important needs of rural areas, and the £150 million of funding for the mobile infrastructure project is precisely to deal with “not spots” in coverage. The rural broadband programme is also terribly important and the £10 million that I referred to is precisely to help rural “not spot” areas.
Tourism
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current assessment of the importance of tourism to the United Kingdom economy.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the importance of tourism to the UK economy is clear. It contributed £58 billion directly to the economy last year and supported more than 1.75 million jobs. Those figures rise to £127 billion and 3.1 million jobs when the indirect impacts of tourism on the wider economy are included. That is why this Government have invested more than £165 million, including private sector matched funding, in the GREAT and other marketing campaigns.
Lord Lee of Trafford
Given that tourism is our fifth largest industry, that a third of the new jobs created in the past three years have been in tourism and that tourism is so important to many cities, towns and regions in this country, does my noble friend realise why those of us involved in the Campaign for Tourism are determined that tourism features in the manifestos of the major parties in the coming general election, unlike last time, when they did not feature at all? Is it not time that, given its importance, tourism was included in the title of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I emphasise that the Government recognise that tourism is a vital part of the future of the UK economy. Indeed, the Prime Minister met officials from the Campaign for Tourism only last month. The point that my noble friend makes about manifestos is obviously very potent. I know of at least four government departments that have an interest in tourism: the Treasury, the DCLG, BIS and of course the DCMS. There is a Minister with responsibility for tourism but this is a matter that has cross-departmental importance.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Will the Minister give attention to the disparity in the number of international tourists who came to various parts of these islands in the decade between 2002 and 2012? Is he aware that over that period, whereas there was an increase of some 30% in London and of more than 40% in Scotland, in Wales there was a marginal decrease and in north-east England a decrease of almost 20%? Will he consider laying down for VisitBritain not only targets for the overall number of international visitors but targets for the regions in England and for the other three nations?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord that I do not think we should have any ceiling for the targets. We have to take the opportunity in the United Kingdom to ensure that as many people as possible visit from abroad and indeed that there is as much domestic tourism as possible. I was interested to note that according to the recent Deloitte report there are currently 206,000 direct and indirect tourism jobs in Wales. Indeed, the Great Britain Tourism Survey for last year showed that British residents made nearly 10 million visits to Wales, which was 3.4% up in comparison with the previous year.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, there was a startling increase in the number of visitors from abroad last year. Does my noble friend accept that in no small part that was due to the enormous success of the Olympic Games? Should we hope for a similar bounce from the Commonwealth Games this year?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that the Commonwealth Games give us an enormous opportunity to welcome many friends and visitors from the Commonwealth and well beyond. I was particularly interested in the Anholt Nation Brands Index, which is so important in terms of perception of the UK. The UK overall nation brand has held third place—the same as 2012—and in terms of welcome has moved up three places from 13th to 10th and for sport has moved up one place from sixth to fifth. These are encouraging figures and the whole nation should be proud of them.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lee, makes an excellent point about including tourism in the name of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Can the Minister name any other private sector industry that by 2025 will have created 630,000 new jobs? Can he also tell the House how remote areas of the United Kingdom will be supported by the Government in increasing tourism jobs, not least in those areas which do not have broadband and mobile coverage?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I hope that, by the time the programmes for broadband have finished, all parts of the country, particularly those remote areas which are such wonderful parts of rural Britain to visit, will have benefited. I suspect that I am in difficulties in looking at an alternative but, of course, tourism is made up of many small businesses. That is an area which we are very keen to support. Small and medium-sized enterprises are a key feature of tourism’s success.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
Is the Minister aware that the National Gallery is offering its audio guide for its current main exhibition in English only? Visitors from Italy, Spain and France have said that they cannot understand it and feel excluded. Should not all global institutions hoping to benefit from tourism provide their public information resources in several languages, as we do in this House?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a strong point. I know that as part of the China Ready programme, for instance, many of the major visitor centres now have their guides in Cantonese and Mandarin. I encourage the British Museum, a great institution which has the largest number of visitors in this country—many millions—and all museums to look at language opportunities.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be as aware as I am of the decline in traditional industries in Wales. The result has been an increase in the importance of the tourist trade, which today employs about 112,000 people directly and 56,000 others indirectly. Does the Minister not agree that this is an opportunity to encourage that growth? Nothing would do more to help that than a reduction in VAT on visitor and tourist facilities and hospitality from, say, 20% to 7%.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I have already referred to the robust figures for Wales in terms of employment. There is a great industrial heritage there and many visitors. However, on VAT relief, one should remember that the United Kingdom provides cultural attractions which have significant VAT relief, including national museums and galleries, and that other countries impose tourist taxes which we do not.
Crime: Domestic Violence
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of prosecutions brought for domestic violence.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, the number of domestic violence cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police reduced in 2012-13. However, the conviction rate for such cases was 74.3%, its highest ever recorded level. The fall in referrals was considered in a report on the police response to domestic abuse published by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in March 2014. The Home Secretary will be chairing a national oversight group to monitor delivery against HMIC’s recommendations, improve consistency in charging and ensure that the police make appropriate referrals to the CPS.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He mentioned that the number of referrals by the police had increased and the number of successful prosecutions had reduced. The recent report from HMIC shows that police forces are failing and that victims of domestic violence have been faced with a lottery. The report concluded that the overall police response to victims of domestic abuse is not good enough. Does the Minister agree that much more needs to be done to ensure that police forces are trained and fully aware of what they need to do to ensure that victims of domestic abuse and women who are murdered at the hands of their partners and ex-partners will receive the correct response from police forces so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, who has a long record of campaigning and taking an interest in this issue. Just to clarify, it is the number of successful prosecutions that was at the highest level ever recorded. However, I agree with what she said about the conclusions of the HMIC report—they are very disturbing. That is why the Home Secretary will chair a national oversight group to monitor delivery against the recommendations, which have been accepted. She has already written to the domestic abuse leads in each police force and to the chief constables to make clear the expectation that plans should be produced quickly and emphasise that urgent action should be taken to address HMIC’s concerns. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that domestic violence is wholly unacceptable and is very damaging to the victims. It is only right that we take every step possible to improve the prosecution of it.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that domestic violence is a gravely reprehensible offence which should normally be dealt with by way of condign punishment? Is that not so because of the greater vulnerability of women in terms of physical strength, economic security and particularly the protection of children? Is the Minister satisfied that the advisory sentencing bodies are sufficiently enthused to pass on this message to magistrates and judges and that this is essential if this disgraceful practice is to be effectively contested?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord said about it being a wholly reprehensible crime. Among the many concerns, I am not aware of the particular question of sentencing. There may well be individual cases where individual sentences are not acceptable. The important challenge for us, particularly in the light of the HMIC report, is to improve policing. It is unfortunate that the report has discovered a cultural issue where:
“Domestic abuse is a priority on paper but, in the majority of forces, not in practice”.
We have to address that issue and tackle it in following up the recommendations of the HMIC report.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, as my noble and learned friend probably knows, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, is conducting a major inquiry into this general subject. Without being in any way complacent, would he agree, as I think he has already said, that it is a matter of some satisfaction that the former Director of Public Prosecutions, in his 2013 report, found that, for the first time, three out of four violence against women and girls prosecutions have resulted in a conviction; that domestic violence, rape and sexual offence prosecutions have reached their highest conviction rate to date; and that guilty pleas have led to most successful outcomes, avoiding the victims having to face the ordeal of a trial?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, my noble friend rightly points out that the number of guilty pleas has also increased, which is helpful in relieving victims from having to give evidence. Although prosecutions are at their highest level, it is also fair to say, in tribute to the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, that when he saw the reduction in the number of referrals in the reports and information which he was given and published, he immediately convened a round-table conference among the key stakeholders. Six action points were taken forward from that, which my honourable friend the Solicitor-General announced in the other place. I know that it is also the case that the present Director of Public Prosecutions takes this crime very seriously.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, since 2010-11 there has been a 13% increase in reported incidents of domestic violence but fewer cases have been passed to the CPS. If we take that together with the fact that there has been a 31% reduction in funding for refuges for those who are subject to domestic violence, would the Minister agree with Women’s Aid that that means that women and children are more likely to remain in or return to abusive situations? Will the Government’s review make an assessment of how many more women and children are now at risk and will the Government bring forward plans to deal with it?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, an important recommendation from the HMIC report not only looked at the question of policing and the great variations within it across the country but noted that tackling domestic abuse requires organisations in both the statutory services and the voluntary community services to work together to give proper multiagency support to victims of domestic abuse. Again, that is a recommendation that the Home Secretary has accepted. I think it is common ground across the House that we need to be very active in giving effective support to victims of domestic abuse.
Climate Change
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the United States National Climate Assessment report about climate change impacts in the United States.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, the United States National Climate Assessment is a valuable addition to the growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating the current impacts and future risks of climate change. Like the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment, it shows that climate change is already having a serious impact on many economic sectors and all regions of the United States. It strengthens the case for ambitious action to tackle climate change in the US and globally.
Lord Dykes (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that very helpful answer. Is not the ominous reality of this very detailed scientific examination, along with recent developments such as the alarming weaknesses in the Wilkes Basin ice banks in east Antarctica, that all countries need to accelerate and reinforce their carbon reduction programmes urgently? Does my noble friend feel that the UK Government are responding adequately?
Baroness Warsi
I can assure my noble friend that the United Kingdom Government—and the previous Government as well—have always been a leader on the issue of climate change and have sought to strengthen not just their own position but those of other countries. We are leading on legislation, we are leading on targets and we are leading in the international conversations to make sure that we take other countries with us.
Lord Barnett (Lab)
My Lords, if we in the UK doubled what we are now doing on climate change, what impact would it have in the United States?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord makes an important point, clearly referring to the fact that the United Kingdom is, thankfully, responsible only for 1.5% of global emissions, unlike the United States. However, it is of course important that we continue to work with friends and colleagues in the United States to make sure that they keep heading in the right direction. We can say that the current Administration in the US are making all the right moves.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for his characteristic courtesy. Is my noble friend aware that her reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is wholly mistaken? Is she aware that the latest IPCC report explicitly states that estimates of the aggregate economic impact of climate change are relatively small and that moderate climate change, which is what it predicts for the rest of this century, may be beneficial?
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I promised myself that I would try to not get into a discussion on science with my noble friend, but he tempts me. The scientist in the family is my husband, but I would come back to the noble Lord on this particular question by saying that the overwhelming evidence from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is supported by every country in the world, clearly shows that this is a real hazard, it is man-made and it is causing us huge concern.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s robust refutation of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, is extremely welcome, but is her view of climate change shared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Baroness Warsi
I have never had a conversation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about climate change. We have had conversations on many other things, but certainly I will speak to him when I next get the opportunity.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, I will put a rather more moderate question. Is it not a bit regrettable that, whereas in the United States carbon emissions are falling as a result of the huge switch from coal to gas, the opposite seems to be happening here? Is the Minister aware that virtually no new gas turbines are now being built, despite government measures to encourage them? Indeed, some brand new and efficient gas stations are being closed down. Is there not something basically wrong with the policy?
Baroness Warsi
One of the great successes in the United States has been the development of shale gas. It is, of course, a policy of which the Government are hugely supportive. Diversifying our energy consumption and investing in green energy, as this Government have clearly done, will both help ensure that we meet our targets.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that if she is asked a quiz question, “What do the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, the noble Lord, Lord Bell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, have in common?”, the answer is that we are all trustees of the Climate Parliament? In the Climate Parliament, Members of Parliament from all around the world agree with her and not with the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.
Baroness Warsi
I pay tribute to the Members of the Climate Parliament, which is clearly a noble group of people.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the key findings of the United States climate change report is that the process of climate change is now much faster than we had expected it to be? The effects are predicted to fall within a matter of a decade or so, rather than 20 or 30 years from now. Given that, will she persuade her friendly Secretary of State for Education to ensure that children in school are made more aware of the absolute necessity of tackling climate change than they are at present?
Baroness Warsi
I will, of course, pass those comments on. It will take a whole generation to deal with one of the biggest challenges for our generation. As my noble friend said, it takes time between emissions going down and the real impact that that will then have in terms of keeping the global temperature down. The concerns at the moment are that the knock-on impact will be much greater than originally anticipated.
Ukraine
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Ukraine made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on recent events in Ukraine. I will update the House on the situation on the ground, the diplomatic work going on to reduce tensions, the decisions we made at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels yesterday, and the approach we will continue to pursue over the coming weeks.
Presidential elections will be held in Ukraine on 25 May. In the vast majority of the country, preparations are proceeding well under OSCE observation. The UK is contributing 100 observers to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Election Observation Mission—10% of the total number; £429,000 for the first round of elections. We have also given £1 million in funding so far to the Special Monitoring Mission. I met the heads of both of these vital missions in Ukraine last week, and I thanked them for the hard work of their teams in difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances.
But in two of Ukraine’s 25 regions—namely Donetsk and Luhansk in the south and east of the country—the situation has deteriorated markedly over the last two weeks. A constant barrage of propaganda by the Russian media, and a steadily mounting death toll, are contributing to an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and division. So-called pro-Russian separatists—led by people who, by their training, equipment and behaviour, give every appearance of being Russian special forces—have continued to seize and occupy government buildings in the south and east of Ukraine, using many of the same tactics that were deployed in Crimea. We have seen intimidation of journalists, abductions and murders. Missiles have been used to destroy at least four Ukrainian military helicopters, giving the lie to Russia’s claim that these are the actions of spontaneously organised local protestors, rather than of well trained, well equipped professionals. On 2 May more than 40 people died in Odessa, including many pro-Russian protesters trapped in a building that was set on fire, an act we condemn unreservedly.
This weekend, separatist groups staged sham referendums on self-rule in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. The polls were marked by blatant fraud, including multiple voting, no proper voting lists, and threats and intimidation against Ukrainians standing up for the unity of the country. These referendums met none of the basic standards of objectivity, transparency and fairness, and they have no credibility whatever. We will not recognise these or any other attempts to undermine the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. The Government believe that our national interest lies in a democratic Ukraine able to determine its own future, and in defending and protecting a rules-based international system. So our objectives remain to avoid any further escalation of the crisis, to support the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine, and to uphold international law.
I visited Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia last week to show our support at a time when all three countries are feeling acute pressure. We look forward to the signing next month of Georgia and Moldova’s association agreements with the EU which will also establish deep and comprehensive free trade areas, which are currently under parliamentary scrutiny. I gave our strong support to the Moldovan Government’s plans to sign and implement the agreement, and encouraged them to make more progress on reform and in the fight against corruption. In Georgia I discussed and thanked the Government for their contribution to their partnership with NATO.
In Ukraine, I met the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and the head of the National Security and Defence Council, as well as the Governor of Donetsk and two of the presidential candidates. I encouraged all Ukraine’s leaders to communicate with people in the south and east of the country, and to counter Russian disinformation. I welcomed the steps the Government have taken to launch an inclusive dialogue on constitutional reform and decentralisation, and to offer an amnesty for those who peacefully leave occupied buildings in eastern Ukraine. I assured Ukrainians of our support for the presidential elections, which must be allowed to take place free from violence and intimidation. On top of our strong support for the work of the OSCE, the UK is providing technical assistance to support public financial management and other reform efforts in Ukraine. We have led the call for the urgent imposition of EU sanctions targeting individuals suspected of misappropriating funds from the Ukrainian state. We hosted the Ukraine Asset Recovery Forum two weeks ago in London, with the United States and Ukraine, in order to co-ordinate this work.
As I have always stressed, the doors of diplomacy remain open. We continue to discuss the situation with Russia, and the Prime Minister had a long conversation with President Putin on 1 May. We strongly supported the Geneva agreement of 17 April and deplore the failure of Russia to join in implementing it. It is right to try now to revive the diplomatic process, and I support and welcome the efforts being made by OSCE Chair-in-Office and President of Switzerland Burkhalter. Last week I met him in Vienna, and I have held further discussions with him over the weekend and yesterday in Brussels. Last Wednesday he met President Putin and put forward a four-point plan, including the immediate launch of a national dialogue by the Ukrainian authorities with OSCE support. We have encouraged Ukraine to respond positively and it is now doing so. The Government have announced that they will hold the first meeting tomorrow, and agreed that there will be both Ukrainian and international mediation in this process.
I strongly believe it is in the interests of all concerned to seize these opportunities to reduce tensions. It is manifestly in the interests of the people of Ukraine, including in Donetsk and Luhansk, where there is a danger of the violence growing even worse and many more lives being lost. It is in the interests of Russia, because some events have already moved beyond their control, and because the long-term economic and political costs to Russia of an escalating crisis will be very serious. It is also urgent, because the situation is deteriorating and the elections are only 12 days away. We look to Russia to exercise its influence and to take every opportunity to restrain those responsible for violence and disorder, consistent with President Putin’s remarks last Wednesday that the elections are a step forward.
Yesterday I attended the Foreign Affairs Council, where we made it clear that attitudes and behaviour towards the holding of the elections will have particular importance in deciding whether or not wider economic and trade sanctions will be applied. Preparations for these sanctions are at an advanced stage. There is no doubt that the Ukrainian authorities are making thorough preparations for the elections to be held, and therefore Russia’s willingness to exercise its influence over illegal armed groups in parts of eastern Ukraine will be the decisive factor in whether everyone in the eastern provinces will be able to exercise their right to vote. Since Russia has taken no practical steps to de-escalate the crisis so far, we agreed to add a new group of 13 individuals and two companies to the list of those persons sanctioned. This is the first time that such entities have been sanctioned by the EU in relation to Ukraine.
We agreed to expand the criteria for sanctions. These will now cover not just individuals directly responsible for undermining the security, territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, but also a broader range of individuals and entities linked to separatist and illegal activities. For the first time, the sanctions will also be applicable to entities in Crimea or Sevastopol whose ownership has been transferred contrary to Ukrainian law and to those who obstruct the work of international organisations in Ukraine.
At the Foreign Affairs Council, we also called on Russia to take effective steps to fulfil its Geneva commitments: to refrain from provocative actions and intimidation, to use its influence with separatist groups to compel them to disarm and to vacate illegally occupied buildings, and to cease its destabilising campaign.
We demanded that Russia move its troops away from the Ukrainian border. President Putin said last week that troops were returning to their regular training grounds. However we have seen no evidence that Russia has reduced the huge number of its troops stationed just miles from Ukraine, and in fact Moscow continues to encourage the actions of separatists, including through Russia’s state-controlled media.
In addition to these steps, we agreed as Foreign Ministers that the EU will prepare a possible civilian mission to Ukraine to support capacity building in the fields of rule of law and judicial and police reform, and we maintained our firm commitment to sign the remaining provisions of the association agreement with Ukraine, including the deep and comprehensive free trade area, as soon as possible after the presidential elections. It is clear that if Russia does not take the path of de-escalation, the long-term cost to it will grow, in an economy already shrinking and suffering massive capital flight. G7 energy Ministers met in Rome last week and committed themselves to reduce market power and political influence through energy supply. EU leaders will discuss further detailed measures when they meet in June.
The people of Ukraine deserve the right to choose their own Government in a free and fair election, just as we do. They also deserve to be free from external interference and duress and to have the chance to chart an independent future without the debilitating corruption and mismanagement of recent years. They should have every opportunity to be a bridge between east and west—not to have their country pulled apart by the fanning of hatred, the wilful sowing of violent disorder and the insertion of provocateurs and separatists from over their borders.
There is now a fresh opening for Russia and anyone else fostering violence and tension to turn back from the brink. The coming days will demonstrate whether they are going to take it, and the UK will do everything it can to encourage that and to support the holding of open and fair democratic elections.
The international community must continue to be prepared to act with resolve and determination to persuade the Russian Government to change their approach, to defend the rules-based international system, and to prevent a deterioration of the situation in the wider region”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in another place by her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary earlier today. It is clear from the number of noble Lords in their places how important they feel that the Statement she has just repeated actually is. The Minister will know that Her Majesty’s Opposition continue to give our support to Her Majesty’s Government in their handling of this matter.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, the Foreign Secretary is of course right when he says that the situation today in eastern Ukraine is deeply troubling. The violence, as we have heard, continues, the death toll is rising and the situation remains very volatile. We, too, unreservedly condemn—as will all people of goodwill—the tragic events of 2 May in Odessa, in which more than 40 people died. We, too, condemn the sham referenda in Donetsk and Luhansk last Sunday, which were well described as both illegal and illegitimate. The priority must now be for calm to be restored and further violence to be prevented. However, recent events—particularly last week and over the weekend—have perhaps created a key moment, when the real resolve and intentions of Russia must now be tested.
Some commentators have seen some public comments by President Putin as a sign of possible progress. However, as history has constantly taught us, words are not enough, it is actions that count. That is why the international community has to judge President Putin not by his words alone but by his actions. He has said that the referendum should be postponed. Now that it has taken place, surely he must condemn it. He has said that presidential elections might be a step forward. Now, surely, he must help create the conditions for them to take place fairly, fully and peacefully across the whole country. He has said that he has withdrawn troops from the border. Surely he must allow NATO to verify that. He has signed up to the Geneva accord of 17 April. Now he must help to implement it.
If President Putin fails to take the minimum steps required to demonstrate that he is willing to change course, the West must be prepared to increase pressure in the days and weeks ahead. We therefore welcome the steps agreed at yesterday’s European Union Foreign Affairs Council to extend existing targeted measures, including those against two companies. On the measures agreed, can the Minister say whether she expects that the expanded criteria will result in the addition of further Russian entities—companies—to the list of companies targeted by such sanctions?
We warmly welcome the council’s conclusions on the work of the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine, and most particularly our country’s—the UK’s— contribution, both financial and in terms of personnel, to this particular mission. We also agree with the remarks made by the EU High Representative—our noble friend Lady Ashton—following the Foreign Affairs Council meeting yesterday, when she said:
“We are encouraging the efforts of the Government of Ukraine to reach out to all regions within the framework of the national dialogue, including on the constitutional reform process”.
She went on:
“It is vital to ensure the rights of national minorities”.
The Geneva accord of 17 April still serves as the most credible road map to a peaceful resolution of this crisis. It is a matter of regret that Russia has so far shown no willingness to implement its terms. Can the Minister, therefore, help us by confirming that efforts are under way to secure a further meeting between the signatories of that agreement to the deal, as a way of trying to make progress on its implementation? We note the Council’s conclusions yesterday in support of a further meeting, but in light of Russian statements that no such meeting is being planned, can she set out the likelihood of its taking place?
We also welcome her remarks on the preparatory work being done by the EU on possible wider trade and economic sanctions against Russia. Can the Minister provide the House with any further details about the kind of measures currently under consideration? Can she confirm, too, that any steps taken by Russia to seek to prevent the peaceful process of presidential elections later this month would be deemed a serious escalation and further evidence of its intention to further destabilise the situation in Ukraine? We also welcome the Government’s confirmation that an association agreement is due to be signed with Georgia and Moldova next month, alongside the free-trade area agreement.
Finally, the Government are of course aware that many countries in the region, especially those from the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, but also including our Nordic allies, have a deeper concern that Russia’s actions in Ukraine are not an isolated incident but part of a developing and worrying trend—particularly in light of recent claims by the Russian Government about their need to protect Russian speakers or ethnic Russians, irrespective of their nationality or the credibility of any real threat against them. It is little wonder that that has caused apprehension and even alarm, so can the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had with our EU and NATO allies on our response to these developments?
We thank the noble Baroness for keeping Parliament informed about these very difficult and serious issues and we express again our support for the Government’s actions in dealing with them.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I thank the Benches opposite, and indeed the noble Lord, for the bipartisan approach that has been adopted in this matter and for their support for the Government’s approach.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that actions must follow words and of course some of those words have been positive, such as the reference to the elections as a step forward and the commitment to the Geneva agreement. It is because we must hope for the best but plan for the worst that, at an EU level and bilaterally with many of our partners, we continue to plan for further measures if there was to be an escalation. The kinds of situations to which the noble Lord referred are exactly the kind which would be seen as further escalation. Any sort of prevention of people being allowed to vote or a disruption of these presidential elections would be seen as the kind of areas which would lead to further measures.
The broader criteria will now mean that the people and entities now under consideration go much broader than the initial group of people that we were considering, but I think that the noble Lord will understand if I do not provide him with details of who they are or the kind of organisations that they may be. There are 28 nations at the EU level with which we try to get agreement on these matters, and it is important that we allow the process to take place to reach that agreement.
The noble Lord raised an important point about whether this is an isolated incident. I spent parts of my Recess in Central Asia, where it was interesting to hear from people from the ex-Soviet bloc states, such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, as to how this was being perceived by them and the impact that it could have on the potential customs unions that Russia wishes to take forward. The actions of Russia in relation to its neighbours—the lack of respect for the territorial integrity of its immediate neighbours—does not necessarily bode well for what is considered to be, I hope, an equal relationship when forming those customs unions.
The noble Lord also raised an important point in relation to the Geneva agreement. The signatories to that agreement were of course Russia, Ukraine, the EU and the US. That is the right format in which to take these matters forward, but there is a whole series of measures agreed back on 17 April in that Geneva committee which have not yet been implemented. Specific things were asked of Ukraine: for example, tabling an amnesty law, which has been done; a commitment to constitutional reform, aimed at decentralisation, which has been made; and guarantees on the protection and status of the Russian language, which have been given. There were certain very specific asks of Russia also, which, as the noble Lord said, have not been met. We want to see progress on the asks that have already been agreed and on the specific things agreed at the Geneva committee.
It is important to push back on some of the rhetoric we are hearing about what the people in south and east Ukraine want. Credible polls have been held by organisations that are very close to the ground, which said that something like 70% of people do not see a future for themselves within Russia and do not feel that the Russian language is under attack, for example. We have a responsibility to push back on what clearly is not an accurate account of the situation on the ground.
I thank the noble Lord and the Benches opposite for the huge support they have given to our approach.
Lord Soley (Lab)
This is a strong Statement and I welcome it very strongly. Can I ask the Minister to convey—
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, from these Benches I, too, wish to thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Foreign Secretary’s rather comprehensive Statement today updating us on the European Council. It is a happy coincidence that President Didier Burkhalter of Switzerland happens to chair the OSCE at this time, because the OSCE is the right body to defuse tensions. We were very heartened to see that he has suggested to the President of the European Council that he hold a series of round tables to try to mediate the situation. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland—or, indeed, their representatives—will play a prominent role in the OSCE negotiations? That group of countries negotiated the first accord, which I think was acceptable to all sides in the conflict.
Will the noble Baroness also tell us about the position of Germany? I understand that the German Government are keen that Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger, the chairman of the Munich Security Conference, should lead a separate round of mediation efforts. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not need me to remind her of this, but I put on the record that it is absolutely critical for the European Union to remain united on this issue through the OSCE. To have individual countries breaking off and setting up their own initiatives for their own geostrategic reasons can hardly be a welcome development from our side but would be welcomed by Mr Putin; it would be an opportunity for him to obfuscate further.
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend has always made very incisive and important points. President Didier Burkhalter is indeed leading the OSCE negotiations. Again, the parameters of those negotiations have been clear in relation to the cessation of violence, the facilitation of disarmament and the immediate establishment of a national dialogue. It is important that Ukraine delivers for the Ukrainian people and therefore allows stability within the nation to form the strength and backbone of its approach with Russia.
Our European partners and the Foreign Ministers to whom the noble Baroness refers support that process. It is important that there is a unified EU position. However, as I said earlier, there are 28 member states and Russia relies on the fact that the EU may have a difference of opinion within itself. I took great comfort from the Foreign Affairs Council meeting yesterday, given the fact that we managed to reach agreement on a much broader approach to sanctions. The agreement that, if there is a further escalation, there will be an escalation of sanctions shows that Europe is, thankfully, singing from the same song sheet.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House call for shorter questions from Members?
Lord Wright of Richmond
My Lords, I welcome the passage in the Statement that refers to the need for the doors of diplomacy to remain open. Although that clearly relates primarily to the difficulties we have with the Russians on Ukraine, does the Minister agree that there are other subjects that urgently need continued diplomacy with Russia, such as the situation in the Middle East, Syria and Egypt and the threat of Islamic extremism, let alone climate change and energy? It is very important that, however we react to Russian misbehaviour, we do not close those doors.
Baroness Warsi
I fully take those views on board. That is why we continue to sit with the Russians on the E3+3 negotiations with Iran. We want Russia to continue to play its role as an international partner, but it must abide by international norms and laws if it wants to continue to do so.
Lord Soley
Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to remind the House of the importance of a debate on Russia. I have been arguing for that for some time and the Chief Whip has written to me about it. We need to talk about Russia. The first thing that I would like to ask the Minister is whether we are raising with Russia the recognition that there is genuine concern about Russian speakers or people of Russian ethnicity, but they can be better protected by normal human rights legislation, not by moving in special forces to stir up local trouble. Exactly the same concerns arise about the minorities in Crimea, who will now feel very much at risk in view of the occupation by Russia. The way of dealing with minorities in east Europe and Crimea should be part of the agenda.
Baroness Warsi
The rights of minority communities, and indeed minority languages, are an issue that every country deals with and struggles with. Indeed, part of my role in the United Kingdom is about dealing with faith and communities and ensuring that all communities feel part of our nation. However, what part of international norms is about saying that you have to invade the territory of another country because you feel that somehow you have an affiliation to a language that may be spoken by some people in that country? Of course it is important for us to support the Ukrainians in their support for these minority communities and to speak out against xenophobia and anti-Semitism, but it is also important to set out what the international norms are.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Earlier I heard someone in another place say that this was now a matter for the whole of the Atlantic alliance, as of course it is. However, when it comes to the matter of illegal annexations, is it not also a matter for the entire global community, including the rising powers of Asia and including China? Have we had any contact with the Chinese authorities? Has the Minister noticed that Mr Putin is going to be in Beijing in a few days’ time, seeking to secure a major long-term sales contract with the Chinese for gas that he feels he may not be able to sell to Europe? Should we not be a bit cautious? Would it not be a pity if we ended up seeing Russia and China driven closer together as a result of our policies?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend may be aware of the United Nations Security Council vote on 15 March, at which Russia found itself completely isolated, and indeed on that particular vote China abstained. In the General Assembly vote a couple of weeks after that on 27 March, the result was 100 to 11. That clearly shows not just a NATO/Russia or US/EU/Russia issue but actually a world issue where Russia is finding itself more and more isolated.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, yes, Russia must be made to pay a heavy price for its conduct, but does the Minister agree that, if there is to be a lasting settlement, the legitimate interests of Russia will have to be recognised and accommodated, and that those interests include, yes, the cultural and linguistic interests of the Russophone people but also the fact that full membership of NATO should not be extended to Ukraine, and that there should be substantial devolution to those areas of the east and the south of Ukraine that want it?
Baroness Warsi
I hear what the noble Lord has said, but the legitimate and natural interests of the Ukrainian people surely come before the legitimate interests of any other peoples. It must of course be right that the Ukrainian people are free to decide their future. I do not think that the European Union, or indeed the US, are forcing the Ukrainians to go down any path; I was at the Vilnius conference where these discussions in relation to the association agreement started. I refer the noble Lord right back to when these debates were being held at these Dispatch Boxes; we were incredibly careful with our language, constantly asked for matters to de-escalate and constantly spoke with the Ukrainians to ensure that the issues being raised by the Russians were being addressed.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the outgoing Secretary-General of NATO has made clear his concerns about the trends in defence expenditure within the alliance, particularly in light of the international situation. The United Kingdom used to set an example in this regard and thus was able to speak from a position of moral authority. Given the fraught international situation and the issues that we are discussing today, does the Minister not believe that it is time that the United Kingdom resumed its rightful place in this regard?
Baroness Warsi
This question has arisen on a number of occasions when we have discussed Ukraine. The noble and gallant Lord will obviously always make a strong case for defence spending. I assure him that in relation to the resources required, certainly to step up the Baltic air-policing mission, the necessary Typhoons were deployed.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, the BBC World Service used to broadcast in both Russian and Ukrainian, but these services were cut back with the approval of the Foreign Office. This was based on the argument that the new Russia no longer needed such an effort and that funds should be redirected to the Middle East. Russian and Ukrainian now have only an online offer. In the light of the present situation, will the Foreign Office now allocate some resources for changing this situation fully to support broadcasting to this part of the world, particularly television?
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend makes an important point; she knows that this funding was cut back in 2011, and of course matters have changed since then. This matter should be kept under review. The decision made by the BBC will be editorially independent, but in light of how much of this conflict appears to be about a war of words and misinformation we should certainly consider the matter.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s assertion that the referendums that were held in the east of Ukraine were clearly deeply flawed, and would not pass any normal test of a free and fair election. But I am troubled by the implication of much of what she said, that somehow the feelings in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea are entirely an anxiety manufactured by Russian foreign policy, and that they bear no relation whatever to the real feelings of the people in the area. I put it to her that we are all democrats; we all respect the judgment of the people. Is it really the position of Her Majesty’s Government that whatever the views expressed by people in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea on separation, devolution or independence and whatever their judgment is, these people must remain within the present boundaries of Ukraine under the present constitutional arrangements there? I ask this, of course, with the background of a referendum shortly to take place in part of the United Kingdom about its future boundaries.
Baroness Warsi
I sincerely hope that that was not the impression that I gave. If I did, I apologise; it was not how I intended it. From the outset of this crisis, we spoke about making sure that the legitimate concerns of the Ukrainian people, who were raising concerns about minority rights and language, and about decentralisation and much more localised governance, were taken into consideration. This formed the basis of the Geneva agreement, and we have put money into making sure that that is the kind of work that the Ukrainians have started and put in place. Alongside that, the commitments made by Russia too need to be fulfilled and we see no progress on that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. For five years I was an adviser to the Parliament of Ukraine, shortly after Ukraine became independent. I want to bear out what the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Anderson, said. There are very long historical stories between Ukraine and Russia that are not easy to follow for those of us outside. It is of the first importance that we recognise the need for minorities and their language and culture to be respected and do not involve NATO in any oversight or inspection of the outcome of all this. Does the Minister agree that the OSCE should indicate clearly its support for human rights for minorities? I know this has been said, but it needs to be said over and over again until the Ukrainian Parliament says it too—it is of great importance that we are recognised to be supporting the human rights of everybody in Ukraine, whether they are Russian speakers or Ukrainian speakers.
Baroness Warsi
I completely endorse the comments of my noble friend. That is why we continue to press parliamentarians in Ukraine to speak out against xenophobia and anti-Semitism, but we must also remember those minorities which are now in an annexed Crimea. Let us not forget, for example, the Tatar community, which now feels under siege because of what is happening in Crimea. I do not think we can have one rule for one part of Ukraine and not for the other. We must continue to make those demands and expectations of the Ukrainians and also of Russia.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Without seeking in any way to undermine the principles very properly enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is it not the case that the attitude of President Putin has been that of unprincipled and utterly ruthless rapacity towards Ukraine, particularly bearing in mind that Russia was one of the signatories of the Budapest pact guaranteeing the very existence of that country and undertaking in the event of any disruption of that situation that the matter be immediately reported to the Security Council? If it be the case that there have to be further sanctions, will Her Majesty’s Government bear it in mind that President Putin has said on many occasions that the defining moment of success in his public life was the introduction of Russia into the G8? Without considering the expulsion of Russia from the G8, the situation could be bypassed by concentration upon the G7. Is that not something that might be demanded on account of not just the rapacity in relation to Ukraine but the possibilities of wider intentions towards many other countries that were part of the old Russian empire?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord is right that Russia’s actions contravene its obligations under the UN charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act and the 1997 partition treaty on the status and conditions of the Black Sea fleet and are in breach of its commitments under the Budapest memorandum signed in 1994. Russia is not following a plethora of its obligations.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I think we have had four questions from the Labour Benches and only two from this side.
Lord Higgins
Does my noble friend agree, first, that the combination of coalition government and fixed-term Parliaments seems to be resulting in longer and longer recesses and that there is a strong case for us having time to debate this issue in this House on a full-time basis? Secondly, is it not extraordinary that we have such elaborate arrangements on the military defence side of things yet very little thought seems to have been given to economic defence, with the result that we do not have the ability to reach agreement on short notice in the light of the present crisis on economic sanctions? What body is setting up the immediate procedure for dealing with the economic problems and the need to take economic measures in response to this crisis? Should we not have a permanent arrangement covering that?
Baroness Warsi
First, in relation to the point on recess, my understanding is that apparently the number of recess days does not exceed what has happened in previous years. As a Minister who is part of this coalition Government, I cannot remember the last time I had recess.
On the economic consequences, it is already clear, for example from the recent downgrade of growth for Russia’s economy from 2.3% to 0.2% this year, the $63 billion capital flight and the downgrading of Russian bonds, that this is having a real impact on Russia’s economy. The format for making sure that these sanctions are having an impact has been, among other things, the EU Foreign Affairs Committee. It is because there is constant planning happening that when there is an escalation in the situation there is an escalation in sanctions, and those sanctions are biting.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The Minister said a few moments ago that she was very careful about language. I put it to her that her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was most unfortunate in his language in one section of the Statement, when he said:
“We demanded that Russia move its troops away from the Ukrainian border”.
I do not need to remind the House and the Minister that Russia’s troops are, unfortunately, already within the Ukrainian border, in Crimea. It is most unfortunate, undesirable and dangerous to use language that implies that, even if we have not accepted that situation formally or legally, we have somehow psychologically acquiesced in the annexation by Russia of Ukraine.
Does the Minister agree with me that President Putin will naturally take whatever he thinks he can get away with? The sanctions that we imposed on him after the illegal annexation of Crimea were so footling—at the time I think that I described them as “derisory”—that it is hardly surprising that he has come back for a bigger bite. Does the Minister accept that, if we are going to need new sanctions, they had better this time be a great deal more powerful, because she has a very considerable credibility gap to cover?
Baroness Warsi
I have outlined the impact that the sanctions are already having. We are designing these sanctions in such a way as to have a maximum impact on Russia with the minimum impact on others—but, of course, there will be an impact on others, including on ourselves. HMG do not accept—the Foreign Secretary has said this on numerous occasions—the illegal annexation of Crimea. I do not think that anything in the Statement suggests that we do.
Procedure Committee
The Chairman of Committees
That the 5th Report from the Select Committee (Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; Written Answers and Statements; Select Committee Membership; Maiden Speeches in Hansard) (HL Paper 167) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, I beg to move that the fifth report of the Procedure Committee be agreed to. The report covers a number of different areas which I will cover briefly in turn.
The first part of the report recommends a change to the terms of reference of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to add two new grounds on which that committee may draw the special attention of the House to a statutory instrument. This change is being made at the request of the committee. The two new grounds are: (e) that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation; and (f) that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument.
The second section sets out rules for government departments to follow when submitting Answers to Written Questions. The need for new rules arises from the introduction of a new system to allow electronic exchange of Questions for Written Answer and their associated Answers between both Houses and government departments. The new Question and Answer system will automatically publish all Questions and Answers on the parliamentary website and send e-mail alerts to Members, who will have a dedicated web page for viewing and organising all their Questions and Answers. Answers should be received more quickly, as Members will not have to wait for the postal delivery. Answering bodies will be able to include attachments with their answers, containing tabular, graphic or illustrative material which cannot be printed in Hansard. The digital copy of Answers will be the definitive record copy, but a printed version will continue to be published and, in addition, while recognising that we may be somewhat behind the curve of the digital age, the Leader of the House has asked Lords Ministers to continue sending printed and signed versions of Answers to all Lords Members.
The third section of the report arises from a proposal made by the usual channels to reform the rules relating to Select Committee membership with the aim of increasing the opportunities for Members to participate in Select Committee work.
The first recommendation is that from the end of the 2014 Session—I stress that is not from the end of this Session but from the end of the Session which ends with the general election—the rotation rule for all Select Committees other than the House Committee should be three Sessions instead of four. The House Committee presently has a five-Session rotation. That will be reduced to four and then eventually to three. In the longer term, we also propose that the House Committee should come down to a three-Session rotation. To avoid a sudden loss of many Members by reducing the length of service by two Sessions at once, we recommend that this change be implemented incrementally.
Other recommendations include a new rule that Members who leave a committee under the rotation rule should be eligible for reappointment to the same committee, or any of its sub-committees, only after the lapse of two full Sessions. We further recommend that it be set out in the Companion that it is desirable for a Member to serve on only one sessional investigative Select Committee at any one time.
The final section of the report recommends that from the start of the next Session maiden speeches should be marked in Hansard. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of comments in relation to the report. However, as we are discussing procedure, I should say that I find it ridiculous that comment and questions on the Ukraine Statement were restricted to 20 minutes. I know that has been extended from 10 minutes but in the other place such discussion is unrestricted. My noble friend Lady Liddell and a number of other noble Lords tried to get in and some of us did not even bother to try as we knew that discussion was limited to only 20 minutes and that a lot of noble Lords wanted to comment. However, we are going to finish early again tonight and then we are going away for three weeks. This is a matter of great importance and it is a great shame that we will not have another opportunity to comment on it at this point. I hope that the Chairman of Committees will have another—
Lord Elton (Con)
I hope the noble Lord will permit me to point out that he is not speaking to the Motion on the Order Paper. There is a lot of other pressing business that a lot of us want to get on with.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am speaking about procedure and this is a report on procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, will know that if he was in another place he could raise that issue on a point of order but, unfortunately, he cannot do so here, and he should not have. I have made my point and I know that the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip are listening very carefully.
However, to come to my substantive points, I warmly welcome the position in relation to Written Answers and Statements. It is about time that we had full and proper Answers, and the committee is to be commended for that. I also welcome the changes to Select Committee membership although, in view of the important matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, it is a bit ironic that the recommendation wants us to work less rather than more. Nevertheless, it is a logical and sensible recommendation.
However, the main point I want to make to the Chairman of Committees is that the relevant measure refers to Select Committees but, as I understand it, it is being interpreted by the Administration to apply also to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, a Joint Committee with the House of Commons. That means we will lose seven Members from the House of Lords—this affects both sides—to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, whereas the Commons Members will continue until the end of the Parliament. That seems to be an anomaly. Whereas it is sensible that this measure should apply to our own Select Committees, it seems strange that it should apply to Joint Committees with the House of Commons given that their Members will continue to the end of the Parliament. I am no longer on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy but a number of Members of that Joint Committee from both sides of the House have asked me to raise that point.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly about Written Answers—an issue that I have raised previously. I strongly welcome the idea of going fully electronic but the report, unless I have misread it, does not consider recesses. We have had four weeks at Easter, nearly three weeks are coming up and there will probably be 10 weeks in the summer. I do not see how we can put down Questions and get Answers. If it is going to be done electronically, it could happen every day in the recesses, but the Chairman of Committees may say that that would be too much work in the summer holidays. However, it could be done at least weekly in order for Members to have some chance of holding the Government to account during these lovely long breaks that we are having.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, the Chairman of Committees said that he hoped that Answers to Written Questions would come more quickly. Some years ago, I was on the Procedure Committee and it was at my instigation that there now appears a daily list of Questions for Written Answer that are outstanding beyond the target time of 10 working days. He said that Answers would come more quickly; I hope that he is right. I will believe it when I see it. One sometimes gets the impression that Answers to Written Questions are being smuggled away—away from the daily Hansard, for instance, in a separate document. Will the Chairman of Committees give me an undertaking that the daily list of overdue Answers will not, in this changed procedure, be done away with but will continue to appear?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
I wish to comment on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about the amount of time allocated to Statements. He is quite right to say that the time allocated today was clearly inadequate because many noble Lords were on their feet wishing to ask questions about a very important matter. We, the Government or the usual channels—I do not know who—have the power to extend the 20 minutes to 40 minutes. Who exercises that power, how do they do so, what consultations do they have and when did they last do it?
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the proposals on Written Answers because they represent a considerable improvement on the current situation. However, given this new technology that we will have at our disposal, has the noble Lord given any consideration to grouping Questions together so that we can see any patterns in the Answers given by government departments, particularly with a view to spotting any systemic evasions and prevarications?
The Chairman of Committees
I shall deal with the last question first. Grouping Questions is an intriguing suggestion that is worth looking into. It would develop almost an internal commentary, would it not? It would be a worth while exercise to have a look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made a point about late Answers. I can give him a full assurance that there will be no hiding place for departments that are late in answering Questions.
I did not quite follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when he said that Select Committee rotation was somehow designed to make us work less. It is not. It is designed to make more people work more. That is generally a good thing.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the issue of tabling Questions in recesses is on the agenda of the Procedure Committee for 24 June, and will therefore receive attention.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Chairman has not answered two vital questions—on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, and on the length of Statements.
The Chairman of Committees
I apologise for not answering on national security. The national security committee is subject to a rotation rule. When it was established, Lords Members were put on a rotation basis. If we had not moved to a three-Session rotation but had kept a four-year rotation, which all our committees are on, we would have had six Members leaving the committee this year.
On the length of Statements, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any answer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may help the Chairman of Committees on the question of Statements. My experience is that there are two reasons why we are occasionally allowed to extend the length of Statements. One is when it is a matter of life and death; the other is Lords reform. When you think of it, they are the same thing.
Privileges and Conduct Committee: 14th Report
The Chairman of Committees
That the 14th Report from the Select Committee (The conduct of Lord Hanningfield) (HL Paper 181) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, this is the second time that we have had to consider a Motion relating to the conduct of Lord Hanningfield. The House will recall agreeing to the ninth report of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct in the 2010-12 Session and suspending the noble Lord from the service of the House for nine months for wrongly claiming the old night subsistence allowance. Lord Hanningfield served a prison sentence for the same offence.
The report that we are now considering comes after Lord Hanningfield was investigated by the independent House of Lords Commissioner for Standards following newspaper articles alleging that in July 2013 he attended the House for very short periods of time, yet claimed the full daily allowance on each occasion. The commissioner found that Lord Hanningfield breached the Code of Conduct in claiming the daily allowance on 11 days in July 2013 when he had not undertaken any parliamentary work. The commissioner also found that, in doing so, Lord Hanningfield,
“failed to act on his personal honour”.
The Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct recommended that Lord Hanningfield be suspended until the end of the current Parliament and be required to repay the £3,300 that he wrongly claimed.
In his report, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards, on the basis of the words used in the Guide to Financial Support for Members and the certification made by Members on the claim form for the daily allowance and travel expenses, identifies two conditions that have to be met if a valid claim is to be made. These are that the Member has to be present in the Chamber or at a committee and that the Member has done parliamentary work on the day for which the claim is made. The establishment of a presence does not in itself fulfil the conditions for making a valid claim. The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards does not seek to define what constitutes parliamentary work but recognises that it might take place other than on the Parliamentary Estate.
Lord Hanningfield appealed to the Committee for Privileges and Conduct and appeared before us last week. Having considered the points that he put to us, we did not uphold his appeal and did uphold the recommendations of the commissioner and the sub-committee.
Suspension until the end of this Parliament is the maximum sanction available to the House. We cannot suspend a Member for longer without interfering with their Writ of Summons. We believe that the maximum sanction is justified in this case, not least because this is not Lord Hanningfield’s first offence.
In January, the House introduced two new sanctions for breaches of the Code of Conduct: denial of access for a specified period to the system of financial support for Members and denial of access for a specified period to the facilities of the House. These penalties cannot be applied to breaches of the code that occurred prior to their introduction, including those that Lord Hanningfield has been found to have committed.
I do not believe that I need to say any more. I sincerely hope that the case before the House today will be the last case of its type. I beg to move that the 14th report from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct be agreed to.
Privileges and Conduct Committee: 14th Report
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Hanningfield be suspended from the service of the House until the end of the current Parliament.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The effect of this Motion is to suspend Lord Hanningfield from the service of the House until the end of this Parliament.
Privileges and Conduct Committee: 15th Report
The Chairman of Committees
That the 15th Report from the Select Committee (Further amendments to the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Code of Conduct) (HL Paper 182) be agreed to.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)
My Lords, this is the second set of changes to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Code of Conduct that we have considered in the past two months. This 15th Report makes three recommendations. The first section of the report establishes a stronger link between the requirements of the Code of Conduct and the system of financial support for Members. To this end, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct proposes that a sentence be added to the relevant claim form stating that, in making each claim, the Member concerned should have regard to the obligation in the Code of Conduct to act on their personal honour. It also proposes that the Guide to the Code of Conduct be amended to emphasise further the fact that Members should follow not only the letter of the rules but also the spirit of the rules and the sense of the House when claiming financial support.
The vast majority of Members make claims for financial support that are beyond reproach, but public concerns about isolated examples of abuse remain. The changes proposed should serve to highlight the importance of all Members acting on their personal honour, and they reinforce the need for the highest standards of propriety in this area.
The second section of the report proposes a code of conduct for Members’ staff. This follows a recommendation from the Council of Europe Group of States against Corruption. The new code sets out the requirements imposed on Members’ staff, most of which already exist but have not previously been set out in one place. The new code for Members’ staff also lays down some general principles guiding the conduct of Members’ staff in their parliamentary work—for example, that Members’ staff should not use their access to the Parliamentary Estate to engage in lobbying.
The final section of the report relates to the imprisonment of Members. The House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill is expected to receive its Third Reading after this debate. That Bill provides that a Member who is sentenced to imprisonment for more than one year will cease to be a Member of the House. However, if the conviction is outside the United Kingdom, the Member will cease to be a Member only if the House resolves as such.
The Bill addresses the most serious cases where Members have breached the criminal law. However, we think that the House should make provision for the Code of Conduct to deal with cases of imprisonment that do not fall under the Bill. If the Bill becomes law in its current form, the Code of Conduct need cover only those situations where a Member is sentenced to, first, imprisonment for up to and including one year; secondly, a suspended term of imprisonment; or, thirdly, imprisonment for over a year outside the UK where the House has not resolved that the Member should cease to be a Member.
Accordingly, we consider that it should be deemed a breach of the Code of Conduct for a Member to be sentenced to imprisonment, whether in the UK or elsewhere, for any length of time, including suspended sentences. Where that is the case, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct will recommend an appropriate sanction. We recognise that there is a need for safeguards in respect of convictions in foreign jurisdictions and we recommend a scheme that takes account of this. That is necessary because a situation could arise when someone could be convicted in a common court for an activity that is not a crime in this country, or, indeed, for something which would be praiseworthy in this country.
Together with the 13th Report of the committee, which the House agreed on 6 March, I believe that this 15th Report will make significant progress in strengthening our system governing conduct. I am, of course, happy to answer questions. I beg to move.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the Chairman of Committees has said in relation to this report and, indeed, to the previous ones in relation to Lord Hanningfield. I am bound to say that the more I listened to it, the more disturbed I got. Are we not now in a somewhat strange position? For a person to be able to claim his allowances, first, he has to be seen by the House or the committee, and, secondly, he has to do parliamentary work. One can easily imagine a situation in which you will be doing parliamentary work for almost the whole of the day without setting foot inside the Chamber or appearing in front of a Select Committee. In those circumstances, noble Lords would presumably do what Lord Hanningfield did—although he did not do the parliamentary work—which is turn up and be seen by somebody here, and then, on your honour, you will have fulfilled both conditions.
I am not raising this point in defence of Lord Hanningfield at all. I am merely pointing out that the present situation almost invites a situation in which people turn up in the House just so that they can be seen in order to fulfil the legitimate requirements before they can get their allowances. I do not know whether anything can be done about this—I suspect that the answer is probably not. However, I would like the Chairman of Committees at least to give us an indication of whether they are thinking about it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal of the Chairman of Committees. It is the least that we can do regarding prison sentences. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, among the general public, there is an absolute incomprehension that people who have been convicted of serious crimes, and have therefore served prison sentences, can go on being Members of this House. I have had that said to me time and again, and I am sure he will agree that it is a conundrum that we have to solve.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for its work in producing these reports. Nothing can be more difficult, I think, than trying to put into words the circumstances in which we can claim our £300 or £150 a day tax free.
I hope the Chairman will forgive me if I raise one or two points on the Committee’s latest formulation. I am sorry that I did not raise these points with him in advance but, like many noble Lords, I only got round to looking in detail at the new proposals today. However, we know enough about the expenses scandal and the Lord Hanningfield case—and, I fear, others—to know that the language of our self-restraint, if one might call it that, is very important. It does not help to leave that language too rubbery and too open to different interpretation. For example, in the latest formulation, paragraph 4.1.3 of the Guide to Financial Support for Members talks about “appropriate parliamentary work”. However, the claim form simply talks about “parliamentary work”; there is no reference to “appropriate”. Paragraph 8 of the Guide to the Code of Conduct talks about Members in the discharge of our “parliamentary duties”—“duties” as opposed to “work”, and “work” as opposed to “appropriate parliamentary work”. Those three phrases are more than capable, and with some justification, of different interpretations. I urge the Chairman and his committee to consider that point with a view to further amendments, because we do not want any more of this.
I would also like to add, if I may, that there is constant reference to “honour” and to a “sense of the House”—a breach of honour according to the sense of the House. There is absolutely no guidance on what the sense of the House might be in any circumstances. I understand that you cannot find a form of words that will be clear in every circumstance, but I again put it to the Chairman that he might consider that the committee should have a number of scenarios in which it says that it would be contrary to our honour, in those circumstances, to claim or not to claim.
I am afraid that these are issues that the press are looking at closely. Lord Hanningfield himself, in the Daily Mirror article last July, talked of 50 other Peers clocking in and clocking out as he did. I really hope that we do not leave ourselves in the position where we are vulnerable to another wholesale attack on what is going on here, with us apparently doing nothing about it. If any of your Lordships claimed for the full 139 sitting days last year, that would have come to £41,700 tax free. If you gross that up, it is a lot of money, and I am afraid that we remain unduly vulnerable. This is something that we need to address, because the work of this House is of such crucial importance.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, I have read the report and listened most carefully to the Chairman of Committees. This is probably down to my gross mental inadequacy, but could the Chairman of Committees explain more fully to the House the difference between the sanction proposed for imprisonments of under one year and that for imprisonments of over one year?
The Chairman of Committees
I will make a general point first. This House has responded to individual abuses of the scheme in a way which has shown that it has not been prepared to duck the issue: it has tightened the regime, and tightened it quite significantly over a period of months and years. That is to the credit of this House as a self-regulating House in the full and proper sense of the word. I agree that many people, including some of your Lordships, are enormously frustrated that because of the Writ of Summons, it has not been possible to move to exclude individual Peers even in the most severe circumstances. However, that has now been tackled through the new legislation and through what we are putting in place here.
On the detailed point about the difference between imprisonments of over one year and those under one year, imprisonments of over one year mean that it is going to be expulsion while for those under one year the House will work out a sanction for itself. That is the difference: under one year it is not automatic expulsion while over one year it is.
I will deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The commissioner has said that there are two conditions that your Lordships have to fulfil to make a valid claim. He has come to that on the basis of what we have agreed in the Guide to the Code of Conduct, the Guide to Financial Support for Members and the certificate that we sign when we make our claims. On the basis of those documents, two conditions have to be met. The first is that the Peer has to be present in the Chamber or at a committee meeting—presence has to be established. However, that in itself is not a complete fulfilment of the conditions.
The second condition is that parliamentary work has to be undertaken for every day that is claimed. That is not defined, and it would be very difficult to get into definitions, but it rests on the concept of personal honour. When this concept of personal honour started to be developed, I was one of those who thought that it was rather a woolly notion and could be easily evaded by someone saying, “Well, in my view, I did act on my personal honour and who are you to say that I did not?”. However, it has proved an enormously powerful concept, because we have got to the stage where it has been operationally developed and applied to cases where it was made abundantly clear that the individuals concerned had not acted in terms of personal honour. The definition is not a subjective definition: it is a more objective definition based on the meaning of personal honour in a particular case and how it would be interpreted by the House generally. That has proved to be the basis on which five people have been suspended, so it has had a very strong and robust application.
Local Government Pensions Scheme (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That this House regrets that the Local Government Pensions Scheme (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations 2014 will unfairly exclude elected councillors in England, directly elected mayors, the Mayor of London, and members of the London Assembly from active membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme. (SI 2014/525).
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, the new Local Government Pension Scheme came into effect on 1 April 2014. It is the first scheme to be introduced that follows the principles for reform of my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness. The regulations before us set out transitional and savings provisions relating to members of the 2008 LGPS, which is to be replaced by the new scheme. They preserve benefits already accrued by members under the existing scheme and make provision to ensure that members within 10 years of their normal retirement age on 31 March 2012 do not suffer any detriment.
I will be clear: our Motion of Regret does not seek to comment on, revisit or revise what has gone before except in one respect. It regrets the inclusion of those transitional arrangements that deny the right of newly elected councillors to join the Local Government Pension Scheme and of existing council members to remain active after the end of their current term of office. Our Motion does not seek to influence the current consideration being given to a possible restructuring of the scheme or to involve a more collaborative approach. Nor does it purport to address the problems that arise as a consequence of the abolition of contracting out in April 2016, although the Minister might wish to update us on this issue.
Currently we are told that the scheme has assets of some £178 billion; annual employer contributions are in the region of £6 billion and there are some 4.68 million active, deferred and pensioner members. Councillors were given access to a special section of the LGPS where permitted by local authorities’ remuneration panels in 2003. Benefits include a pension based on an eightieth of career average earnings, together with a lump sum life cover and survival benefits. The councillor contribution rate is 6% of basic and special responsibility allowances, so the Government’s description of these arrangements as taxpayer-funded pensions for councillors is less than complete. The most recent data show some 5,000 councillors taking up the opportunity of membership, so while important for councillors, their membership is clearly a tiny part of the overall scheme and cannot in any serious way be said to affect its sustainability.
The proposal to deny access for councillors to the Local Government Pension Scheme was presaged in the Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament in December 2012. As justification for the proposition, the Minister, Brandon Lewis, described councillors as,
“volunteers undertaking public service; they are not and should not be employees of the council dependent on the municipal payroll. They are not professional, full-time politicians, nor should they be encouraged to become so”.
He complained about the allowance system being made worse—he said—by the pension arrangements,
“blurring the distinction between council staff and councillors”.
This was asserted as being,
“a corrosive influence on local democracy and independent thought”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/12; col. 105WS.]
I ask the Minister for the evidence for this insulting nonsense. How does this corrosive influence manifest itself? How are things different from the pre-2003 period?
Initially, individuals were to be excluded from the scheme because they were categorised as volunteers. The Written Ministerial Statement was followed by a consultation last year that suggested adding the Mayor of London and other elected mayors and London Assembly members to those denied access, notwithstanding that it recognised that such positions could be full time and that they carried a salary. This was apparently based on another principle: that the LGPS should extend only to paid employees. Could the Minister enunciate more clearly for us the basis for this principle? Also, in what way is it considered that the Mayor of London, for example, has been unable to withstand the corrosive influence of the pension arrangements thus far? Indeed, if this principle is sacrosanct, why are police and crime commissioners to be allowed continued access to the scheme when all other elected officeholders, including those paid a salary, are to be excluded? To the extent that they remain in the scheme, what is to happen to their contribution rate? What is it that inures Commons Ministers from the corrosive influences of their largely taxpayer-funded juicy pension schemes? In seeking to explain the distinction between pension entitlements for paid employees and paid elected officeholders, how would the noble Baroness rationalise the situation where an elected mayor subsumed the role of chief executive?
It is not only the consequences of the Government’s decision that we regret but the manner in which it is presented and argued. The Government acknowledge that they have no central information about participation in the scheme yet pluck from the air a figure of £7 million that might be saved from the changes. Can we please be provided with the basis for this calculation? If cost is the driver, why have the Government eschewed the prospect of change in the member contribution rate? What consideration have the Government given to the prospects of local authorities setting up alternative collective arrangements for elected members?
The Written Ministerial Statement holds to the notion that councillors receive allowances to compensate them for out-of-pocket expenses, yet notes that they are slowly becoming a form of salary and that, as I said, pension entitlements are making this blurring worse. Of course, this issue will not be unfamiliar to Members of your Lordships’ House but for taxation purposes elected officeholders are treated in the same way as any other officeholder or employee. Their allowances are subject to income tax and, where appropriate, national insurance—after deduction of allowable expenses on the same basis as employees. To the extent that there is a blurring of the payment arrangements, it is suggested that this is a consequence of the diversity of roles and commitment that elected members are today called to undertake. It is spurious to use that as a reason to change the pension arrangements.
People are living longer. Notwithstanding changes to the state pension age and single-tier pensions, we have long recognised that the state alone will not provide sufficient for us all in retirement to live a full life. We have political consensus on the need to encourage greater take-up of occupational and private pension provision, and we have recognised the benefit of auto-enrolment in reversing the impact of individual inertia in this area.
However, the consequences of the Government’s actions for elected local officeholders are not only to shut off access to the Local Government Pension Scheme but to continue to exclude them, as councillors, from the benefits of auto-enrolment. Only to the extent that they have employment income elsewhere will they have the prospect of an employer contribution and the specific impetus to save which is provided by auto-enrolment. Because the thresholds for auto-enrolment are being continually raised by the Government, those elected members who devote more time to council matters and less to remunerative employment will miss out the most. That is hardly an example of valuing those who take on responsibilities for our benefit.
We need politics to be open to people from all walks of life. Some will be able to devote most of their time to the task of being a councillor, some less. That is the strength of our system. To see leaders of our major cities, who oversee billion pound budgets, as just volunteers, is frankly talking down the role of councillor. As the LGA Labour group points out:
“If we want to live in a democracy, then we have to ensure that those that give up their time to deliver it for their local communities are treated respectfully and fairly. Many Councillors make significant salary sacrifices”,
and accept reduced career opportunities in order to serve in public office.
In the words of Sir Merrick Cockell, there is a risk that being a local councillor will become the,
“preserve of a privileged few”.
He called it,
“perplexing that ministers who have been busy adding to the workload of councillors by transferring functions from central to local government”,
should seek to class those councillors as volunteers. We can all point to an impressive array of individuals, not just leaders, in all parties, who do a first-rate job as councillors at a time when we need their talents like never before. As the LGA points out, ending access for councillors in England creates a,
“double standard, as councillors in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland retain their entitlement to participate in the scheme”.
It goes on to say that that does not reflect differences in the responsibilities of councillors in any of the home nations or the dedication needed to serve local communities.
Only yesterday, an LGA report set out just how difficult life is to become for local authorities. Being a councillor, a Member of the Assembly or an elected mayor is not for the fainthearted. They are on the front line in dealing with the budget crisis, of embracing innovation, providing local leadership and driving the growth and skills agenda. They are to be encouraged and valued. In the scheme of things, the Government’s denial of their participation in the Local Government Pension Scheme is very much to be regretted. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this matter because, although other Members of this House have been Assembly members—and, obviously, councillors—before, I am the only remaining Assembly member in this House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for tabling the Motion of Regret. I have also been a councillor, and I can tell your Lordships that I certainly did not feel like a volunteer. I felt like someone who worked extremely hard; it was way beyond anything that a volunteer has to put up with.
I think that it is deeply illogical, in particular, for Assembly members and the Mayor of London to be excluded from the scheme. It is true that we are full-time and we are salaried. We are, in effect, like MPs: we have the same sort of elected demands on our time. Of course, the Mayor of London is also a police and crime commissioner. It seems deeply illogical that other police and crime commissioners will stay in the pension scheme when the Mayor of London will be excluded, although he is a police and crime commissioner by law. I would like a bit of clarification on that: is he excluded as Mayor of London but included as police and crime commissioner? In its report of 2000, the Senior Salaries Review Body recognised the full-time roles of the mayor and the Assembly members, and it decided that they should be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. The SSRB saw no reason to change these arrangements.
It is also deeply unfair for councillors to be excluded. It is a time when it is harder and harder to find people to stand for these posts: they are less and less rewarding, and to exclude councillors from a pension scheme is not just unfair but also rather cruel.
In addition, Assembly members and the Mayor of London will have to find alternative arrangements for their pensions. This will probably be much more expensive than the local government scheme but it will be funded by the taxpayer. We have heard about savings, but actually it will cost the taxpayer more if we go outside the scheme. Therefore, I deeply regret that this has happened.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is important to look at this in context. In opening, I say to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we have to be careful when we talk about volunteers. There are millions of volunteers in this country who do fantastic work, and we should not categorise them as “mere volunteers”. They do fantastic service for this nation. I recognise that councillors’ work is of a special nature, but we should not detract in any way from the marvellous work done by volunteers up and down all the nations of the United Kingdom.
The nature of councillors’ work is different from that of those people who have, historically, been protected by the Local Government Pension Scheme. I think we would all recognise that the first aim of the Local Government Pension Scheme should be to provide a decent, a good, pension for those who work for our local authorities. Historically, going back to the beginning of the century, councillors were not provided with a pension. It was introduced in the aftermath of 9/11, either on that day or on the next day. That is not to say that it was wrong, but it was perhaps not given the consideration that it should have had. This reverts to the historical position of recognising that councillors are somewhat different. They do—let us recognise it—fantastic service: unstinting, unsung, underappreciated and very often totally unappreciated. However, it is also worth saying—and, to be fair, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said this—that it is only a small minority of councillors, I think about 16%, who are signed up to this scheme. Again, we need to get that into perspective.
I also do not recognise the comments made by the noble Baroness in relation to the cost of the mayor and so on providing for their own pensions. I do not see that there is a tax-funded consequence of that, at least not in the same terms as the scheme that applies at the moment. Perhaps I misunderstood that, but I could not see the consequence there. If I have misunderstood, perhaps that will be elucidated later and, if so, I apologise for that.
The second point that is worth making is that there will be a saving in the scheme, and we have to recognise that resources are scarce. I am not sure whether the party opposite is committed to bringing this scheme back in; I have not heard that said. It is one thing to decry this and say it is a bad thing, but I have not heard any commitment to bring it back in. Perhaps there is such a commitment and perhaps that can be clarified, because there is a saving and all parties recognise that there is a deficit that has somehow to be dealt with. Every saving, no matter how small, contributes to dealing with that deficit. It is very easy to say that we approve of measures to tackle the deficit, but the party opposite often falls into the trap of saying it approves of measures to tackle the deficit and when anything specific is brought up to save money, it is always against them. We need to do that and put this into perspective.
My last word is to say again that we are in great danger of castigating volunteers up and down this country who do terrific work without any allowances or pension arrangements. We need to get that on the record.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association and a serving councillor on Newcastle City Council, albeit one who has not been involved in any way with this provision of local authority member pensions.
I begin by extending congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who as far as I am concerned is making her first appearance on the Front Bench on a DCLG matter. I may have missed her on a previous occasion, but in any case it is a pleasure to congratulate her on that, and on not having to answer this debate or accept responsibility for this particularly malign set of proposals.
These proposals were launched initially by Brandon Lewis MP, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Communities and Local Government, in October 2012. I think that his main claim to fame is that, on an organisation called Phoenix radio, he hosted a talk show called the “Eric and Brandon Show”, which I suppose had a fairly minimal audience in the Brentwood area, where Mr Lewis was at that time the leader of the council. Subsequently, he has of course become an MP elsewhere, while his colleague, who is now the Secretary of State, is the Member of Parliament for the same constituency. Quite whether that broadcast had the impact of the Nick Clegg broadcasts on London radio, I hesitate to think.
However, Mr Lewis must certainly be given the credit for a certain amount of ingenuity. He wrote a letter on 13 March 2014 to Conservatives MPs in England—not that there are many outside England—to explain and defend what the Government were doing. In that letter he said, as we of course understand, that,
“councillors do not receive a salary; rather, they receive allowances to compensate for their out-of-pocket expenses”.
That is an interesting formulation because the actual wording of the Government’s document about this was rather different. The wording in paragraph 1.20 of that document said:
“Councillors are volunteers, elected to their local council to represent their local community. Councillors are not paid a salary or wages, but they are entitled to allowances and expenses to cover their out-of-pocket costs of carrying out their public duties”.
Now, expenses are clearly designed to cover out-of-pocket costs but allowances are not the same thing. Mr Lewis has elided the two concepts in his letter, and quite deliberately so. In addition, he said that,
“following changes made by the Labour Government, allowances have slowly become a form of salary, a situation worsened by the state-funded pensions”,
as if the entire cost was paid by the taxpayer. Of course it is not, as it is a contributory scheme.
However, even that is not quite the full story because paragraph 1.9 of the Government’s document says:
“The provision allowing for councillors’ pensions in England is contained in Section 18(3A) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989”—
when to the best of my recollection there was not a Labour Government in office—
“and the Local Authority (Members’ Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003 made under the powers contained in that section”.
We have one former Secretary of State present from a Conservative Government, although I do not think that the noble Lord was the Secretary of State at the time. But it was a Conservative Government who facilitated or indeed established the concept of making this scheme a possibility. Of course, Mr Lewis carefully avoids that reference but he then says:
“This blurs the distinction between council officers and councillors”.
In whose eyes, it has to be asked, is there a blurring of the distinction? Citizens can distinguish perfectly well between councillors and officers. What is the nature of this blurring that is alleged to be taking place?
I have been a councillor for what might seem an interminable time, particularly to some of my constituents, but I am not alone in having a long period of service. I anticipate that we will hear from other noble Lords today who have had very distinguished local government careers, such as the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Shipley and Lord Tope, as well as my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who have already spoken. Looking around the Chamber, it is possible that there will be others such as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Harris—and there is of course the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton. How could I forget her? Of the five noble Lords I anticipated would speak, between us we have served 165 years, 43 of those as leaders of our respective councils. It was not until the late 1980s that I was in receipt of a special responsibility allowance as leader of my council. I did not take the full amount until the last three years of my tenure. I was senior partner at a firm of solicitors and I felt, in the circumstances obtaining in the early 1990s, that I should claim the full £7,000 a year, which was the allowance paid by my authority at that time. We are not talking in general about very large sums.
Among my successors was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who, no doubt, will tell us about his own experience. My recollection is that he also would have received a modest allowance as leader of the council when he served his term. The present leader of Newcastle City Council—with a budget which, as a result of government cuts, is alas declining from the £260 million a year it had originally reached—receives an allowance of £16,500 and a basic allowance of £8,500. The specialist allowance has been frozen and the standard allowance for members in Newcastle has been cut. That is likely to be the situation in many local authorities in this country. When I was leader of the city council, I was in receipt of a combined allowance that was significantly less than was paid to my secretary. Exactly the same position will apply to all my successors, including the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the current leader; and it may well apply in a number of other authorities.
However, there is another matter that Mr Lewis carefully avoided mentioning in his letter to his political colleagues, which is at paragraph 1.11 of the Government’s document. It says:
“Councillors are eligible for allowances to be pensionable if the local independent remuneration panel made a recommendation to that effect”.
In other words, this is not something dreamed up and decided upon by a local authority: it has to follow a recommendation of the independent remuneration panel. Why does Mr Lewis not refer to that? The answer is perfectly obvious: it would demolish the case he is making, which effectively is that greedy local authority members are determining for themselves whether they should be part of this scheme. It is a shabby and disgraceful way to mislead his colleagues, let alone members of the public.
I recall very well that in my early years as a councillor, before I became leader, I had a very good colleague who felt he had to give up his time at the council, because it was going to affect his own pension at work. Clearly, there are many members up and down the country who feel that they cannot continue. Turnover of members is a significant factor, particularly in London. London colleagues may agree, or may not be able to confirm that. There is a particularly high turnover of people who are in employment because it is very difficult to discharge one’s duties as an elected member—at any level, but particularly at a level which carries significant responsibilities—and be in gainful employment. We do not want to see local councils composed of the unemployed, the retired or the rich. A council composed in that fashion is not an adequate way of serving the public. We want people who are actually in a job, working in the community and bringing that experience and influence to bear upon the workings of their council. If their employment or their prospects of pension provision are going to be imperilled as a result of public service, that will diminish the pool of those willing and able to serve the public.
These proposals are another example of the Government’s—or more particularly, to be fair, the Secretary of State’s—aversion to local authority members. He has a rather Malvolian response to the criticism that he has brought upon himself over the past few years by his repeated attacks on local authorities and members generally. I recall that wonderful phrase in “Twelfth Night” when Malvolio, villainously cross-gartered—I cannot see the Secretary of State as cross-gartered, while “villainous” is an adjective that might be applied to other aspects but perhaps not his gartering —says in frustration and rage as a result of his treatment:
“I’ll be revenged on the whole pack of you”.
This recommendation certainly seems to carry that sentiment into government policy, and it is deplorable.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for enabling this debate, although it gives me no pleasure to intervene in the spirit in which I shall. Given what I know of the many representations that have been made at the highest level in both coalition parties by local government representatives on this issue—representations that have been brushed aside, sometimes rather brusquely—it would be feeble if I lacked the integrity to speak up publicly from these Benches for hard-working colleagues of all parties, including my own, who serve the public as councillors and who, rightly or wrongly, feel targeted by this proposal.
I should declare an interest at the start lest some bright spark declares that I am—what is the phrase?—“on the gravy train”. I lead, nearly full-time, a local authority that, like 58% of councils, is a participant in the local government scheme for members. I am a scheme member, as are 26 others—just half our members. The scheme cost us £65,000 last year. The total cost of member remuneration in Richmond is £56,000 lower than in 2010. For the record, the leader’s allowance is £26,000, which I cut by 12.5% when I became leader.
Against that background, however, we judged cross-party in 2003 that a right of access to a pension scheme in a workplace was a reasonable part of total remuneration. That was a local decision and, like so many other things in local government where all central Governments tend to put their lead boots on, it should be for local determination and local accountability.
I spent half a lifetime judging and advising on public policy—some of it good, some of it bad. There are various tests for a good policy, and among them would be the following. It should not seek to regulate at national level what can reasonably be decided locally or privately. It should be consistent and coherent with other policy—what some call “joined-up”. It should be based on objective evidence. It should address a problem that needs to be solved. It should be proportionate to the issue concerned. It should not be designed, or felt, to discriminate against any group. It should be likely to lead to better public administration or significant savings in expenditure. It must respect, if not always follow, the outcome of consultation. Finally, failing all these, it must be urgent or necessary to respond to a clear public call for action.
In my submission, the policy spectacularly fails every one of those tests. On a clear public call for action, there was none. We have seen comments from the Taxpayers’ Alliance, which is an estimable group—I share its diagnosis that we are spending, borrowing and taxing too much—but it is not the public. The Taxpayers’ Alliance was quite right to note the generosity of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and in my view the Government were right to reform the scheme. Councillors up and down the country, including me, would have supported the reform of members’ rights, too. But why the removal, not reform, of the right of councillors to contribute to a scheme in the workplace? How does that stand up to the tests of good policy? Does member remuneration need to be decided nationally? I do not think so. Nor, in fact, do the Government; in this provision they are not addressing allowances or setting limits, just attacking pension rights. It does not add up.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of this regret Motion. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for the opportunity to do so. I first held elected office as a parish councillor in the late 1980s. In 1993, I was elected to Somerset County Council. At the time, I was working full time. However, instead of having just one parish council meeting to attend a month, I now had 10, and all expected attendance and a report on what the county was doing. After 12 months, I realised that if I was going properly to serve the people I had been elected to represent, I would have to decrease my working week, and so I resigned from my job and did a number of part-time ad hoc jobs. All the council meetings were during the working day and week. Very few took place in the evenings and there were none at weekends. The time commitment was considerable.
When independent panels to assess members’ allowances were introduced, in Somerset we fared better than most in that they recommended councillors could have access to the Local Government Pension Scheme should they wish to. Councillors who had found that their employers were not sympathetic to their work as a councillor, or those who had no other means of support, joined. As has been mentioned, the Local Government Pension Scheme is contributory, and councillors, who pay national insurance and income tax on their allowances, contribute to their pension. The majority of those who join the scheme are in positions of responsibility and find that the time commitment prevents them having full-time jobs which would provide for their retirement.
Councils vary greatly in size, type and responsibility, and it is not uncommon for their budgets to be well over £500,000 million per annum, whereas councillors’ pension contributions will be in the thousands, a tiny proportion of the overall budget. These councillors will be providing services to the vulnerable and frail elderly, as well as scared and frightened children; repairing highways after appalling damage due to flooding; preparing plans to extract minerals at the same time as protecting sensitive rural locations; and ensuring that streets are securely and adequately lit and that there is a sufficient supply of appropriate housing for residents. So are these people not worthy of being allowed to enter the pension scheme? How many Scout leaders have these same responsibilities or oversee the same level of budget?
There have been many inquiries into local government and the need to encourage more able people to come forward to be councillors. Sir Michael Lyons’s report in March 2007 was followed by the councillor commission later that year, in which I, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, took part. The key thrust of that commission was to look at the barriers faced by councillors and how to ease the process. One of the main principles was that councillors are most effective as locally elected representatives when they have similar life experiences to those of their constituents. They are not all wealthy or retired. Key to effective local representation is the relationship and the connection between councillors and their constituents. Councillors need time to engage with and be seen by their constituents. It is therefore important that the Government are seen to be encouraging suitably able, qualified and representative people to be candidates to serve as councillors of local authorities.
One of the 60 recommendations of the commission—noble Lords will be pleased to know that I shall not go through all 60—was that, in order to ensure that as many people as possible can participate in local representative democracy, ideally the role of a councillor must be compatible with full-time employment and an executive councillor with full or part-time employment. The leader of a council should be able to work in addition to council duties. It is recognised that some leaders of larger authorities may wish to work full-time on council duties, but they should not be required to do so. However, this recommendation is extremely difficult to achieve.
The more rural the council, the less likely it is that cabinet/executive members will be able to work full-time. The drive to the council offices can often take anything from 50 to 90 minutes, and any employment that the councillor may have is very unlikely to be in the same location as the council offices. Why should those who give up their time, damage their career prospects and often do not spend as much time with their families as they would wish, be penalised by not having access to the Local Government Pension Scheme?
During my time on the commission, we travelled around the country, holding evidence sessions with local councillors and employers about their experiences and the difficulties that they faced in engaging with local democratic bodies. How can we encourage young people in rural areas, young mothers, or those in their 30s and 40s to come forward? They are representative of people in our communities, but they need to know that their contribution is going to be valued. They have as much to offer as the retired and the well off. Access to the Local Government Pension Scheme is one way they can be sure that they will have some protection should they take on the role. In rural areas, there is no queue around the corner of people wanting to be councillors.
This measure is a real slap in the face for councillors. The Government are giving the message that their contribution is insignificant and they are not valued. It would seem that in future councils are to be run by the wealthy and the retired. What a bleak prospect.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I should first declare my interest, as I have a small pension resulting from six years’ contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme as a councillor. This has been a very helpful debate in identifying the key issues that this decision has thrown up, because it is a very bad decision.
I recognise the role of my party in the coalition in ameliorating some aspects of the proposals. However, the fact remains that the Government’s decision is still poorly thought through and is a bad one, as I say. We should be very surprised and concerned by it because it discriminates against elected councillors, many of whom have heavy workloads as councillors and may have to give up other careers to take on the role, as we have heard. The decision also discriminates against those who have several part-time jobs, of which being a councillor is one. Again, we have heard an example of that.
Recently, during the passage of the Pensions Bill, time was spent discussing how best to recognise that some people may have several part-time jobs in their working lifetime. Being a councillor is such an activity, and it is work. It is formally treated as work in respect of tax and national insurance. Councillors are not, of course, formally employees of a council but because they are remunerated and pay tax and national insurance they are the equivalent of council employees. Therefore, it is very hard to understand why councillors should be excluded from a pension scheme which is available to those who are formally employed by a council.
Council employees may work in full-time or part-time posts and may do so for a short period. Councillors and elected mayors are no different: they may also be full time or part time and may be in post for a short period, should they not stand for re-election or lose their seat at an election. Equality of treatment is missing here. In pension terms, the right of council officers to join a pension scheme should apply also to councillors.
It is sometimes alleged—we have heard this in your Lordships’ House this afternoon—that being a councillor is a voluntary activity. We have also heard it said that it does not take up much time. It is, of course, true that it is a voluntary activity because people are not compelled to stand for election. However, that is not really the issue. In terms of time, being a councillor may not take up much time in a very small council but that is not true in the vast majority of cases.
Full-time elected mayors will not in future be able to join their local government contributory scheme. They may have to give up a contributory scheme in their current employment to become elected mayors but will have no right to continue contributing to a pension through the local government scheme. This seems wrong. Council leaders and cabinet members who carry substantial workloads, often between half and full time, are in the same position. Why should they be denied the right to contribute to a pension?
It has been said that not all councils offer membership of a scheme. My response to that is that I have real doubts about the work of the independent remuneration panels. I do not understand why there is no statutory national scheme for the payment of councillors’ allowances and for a pension scheme. That does not exist yet; I hope that it may do so in future. However, it remains the case that 58% of councils do offer membership. The fact that 42% do not may reflect workloads and the size of those councils, but in total just 17% of all councillors are part of the scheme. My noble friend Lord True asked a critical question—namely, what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve and why do they not simply permit the current scheme to continue? Attention has been drawn to the double standard that will now apply, because in Wales, Scotland and, I understand, Northern Ireland pension rights will continue.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked about the financial consequences and I think said that the proposal may save money. The problem is this: it is unlikely to save any money because an independent remuneration panel will have the power to allocate a sum of money for councillors to purchase pension contributions. If that is done, it will have to be done for every councillor in that council area. Therefore, if that happens, it could end up costing more. At the moment, only 30% of councillors, where there are schemes, have joined them. The right voluntarily to join the contributory scheme is therefore the best way to approach the issue.
At its heart, this is a major issue of principle. The consequence may be that fewer people will be prepared to stand for election and fewer will be prepared to take on leadership roles. The consequences could well be that leadership roles will be undertaken by those who are older, with independent incomes. It would be a great loss to local government if younger people were less willing to serve, and I hope that the Minister will explain what problem the Government are trying to solve, what analysis was done of the consequences of the decision that has been made, and what the future for local government will be if fewer people are willing to come forward to stand for election.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, I will be slightly out of line with other speakers, all of whom have local government experience as well. I have been listening carefully to the debate. As a former leader of a council and a former Minister who did not take a pension—I declare that interest—I am very conscious of the work that is done by local councillors and the extra amount that they do as a result of the changes to their responsibilities that have been made over the years.
However, I part from a number of the speeches, for which I am sorry because I am very fond of my noble friend Lord True and everyone who has spoken. I want to draw back because the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and others have talked about the difficulty of recruiting people as councillors. I remember extremely well when allowances of any sort were first considered. The argument was that if we did not provide them, only the rich, the old and people who had time on their hands would be able to be councillors. We introduced allowances and some of them are very substantial indeed. I know that my noble friend Lord True says that they were reduced, but he is not necessarily in the majority. Over the years, council allowances have exponentially increased. I am not concerned about that but about the fact that we are beginning to use the same arguments that supported allowances for supporting the pension scheme. I have never understood why councillors were included in it, and I shall tell noble Lords why.
It is because local councillors are responsible for their position to their local electorate. They can be there, at elections, or they cannot—they can be taken away. They voluntarily stand for election. They do not know whether they are going to be councillors. They are totally reliant on the electorate to make sure that they are there and for how long. That underlines the voluntary nature of standing for a local council. The work that they do is, of course, immensely important. However, this work can be done alongside other jobs—and many people do that—and therefore I do not understand where the pension comes into it.
I understand why there are allowances. If I may say so, they were quite hard fought for at the time but the allowances are there. I do not think that my noble friend has a policy on which she is going to win very strongly but it is something where the Government have to grasp the nettle. If not, the argument will go on and on as people justify more and more expenditure for local councils.
Finally, I want to make a distinction between councillors and council officers. If councillors ever come to be seen as in any way doing officers’ work and running councils on the basis of officials, then we will have lost the plot. Councillors are there to represent people in the local community which they serve; they are not there to implement policy. There is a difference between employed people on the council and councillors, and I think that that is what drives the distinction between those who do and do not have a pension.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I, too, must declare an interest, having been a councillor for 28 years and being in receipt of a very modest council pension, to which I contributed. The point is that people like me have contributed to their pension and that seems to be forgotten when we talk about the largesse that is provided.
A councillor said to me that he runs a council with a budget of more than £500 million a year and he is paid £28,000 per annum. The noble Lord, Lord True, is probably a good example of someone in that position. It is a full-time job, and the councillor and the noble Lord are not alone in that. Many people have no income other than that provided with this job, and running a council is a job. Many councillors are not full time but they devote a large amount of time to their council. My noble friend Lady Hanham said that they may be here today and gone tomorrow, but what better reason for them to have some form of pension, however small? These people are giving their time when they are not able to contribute to a pension, and the fact that in many cases they are transitory adds to the argument for them having something of substance to fall on when they get older.
I make no apology for also referring to the insult and lack of understanding from the right honourable Grant Shapps when he said that the work that councillors do is the same as volunteering to run the local Scout troop. I do not want to undervalue the leaders of Scout troops but that comment shows complete ignorance. It is demeaning and insulting, and, quite honestly, it is idiotic to make that comparison. What do councillors of all parties and no parties do? They do a valuable job which takes a great deal of time, and the idea that one can take away or reduce pension rights seems quite unfair.
Various figures have been quoted for how much this is costing. I am not sure now what the correct figures are but one that I was given was that countrywide 18,000 councillors cost £3 million. Whether it is £3 million, £5 million or £8 million is irrelevant; it is fairly modest in terms of national expenditure. I should like to compare it to the cost of the 651 Members of Parliament of up to £10 million a year. It seems quite wrong that the other place can take away pension rights when they themselves will enjoy pension rights of much greater substance.
I said that I started work at Barnet Council 28 years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, that was a time when one received a tiny attendance allowance of £20 if one turned up at a meeting. Life has moved on in terms of how people are attracted to the scheme. The point was made that a percentage of people are not in the scheme. That is their choice because it is a contributory scheme. People can make the choice that they do not wish to contribute to a scheme albeit that the local authority will also contribute to the scheme. That is their choice. They make their choice because, in most cases, they have a pension from another source, they are affluent from another source or have inherited money from another source. However, that does not apply to all the people that we want to be councillors and running our local authorities, with expenditure of something like £500 million per annum.
Reference was also made to the concessions my Government have made. I look with amazement at how we regard such small droppings as concessions. We are told that rather than access to the scheme being withdrawn immediately—that was horrific on 1 April—we have a big concession that eligibility will be phased out as councillors are re-elected on 22 or 23 May. What a concession. It really is insulting. It has been agreed that local authority remuneration panels can agree to replace the pension provision with a cash allowance for councillors. My local Conservative council administration—I am chairman of its audit committee and am very involved—a little while ago decided to up the allowances by 54%. There was a public outcry and the allowances were very much reduced as a result. The public will not take cognisance of the fact that pensions have disappeared and that remuneration and allowances of councillors will be substantially reduced to take account of the fact that they are not contributing to a pension scheme. That will be regarded by the public in a very poor light and councillors should not be put into that position. The Government made a commitment that they would not criticise councils which decided to allow such payments. The Government may not criticise them but I am sure that many other people will.
This is devaluing the people who are running local government. As central government devolves so much more to local government, what message is going out to local councillors who do not have an outside income? Their efforts are being devalued by the Government, of which I am part, and I regret these regulations.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to give the impression that this is turning into a Liberal Democrat debate, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill for introducing a little passion into what has so far been a calm and rational debate that rather belies the feelings out there in the country. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue—an opportunity which, for some reason, was not afforded in the House of Commons. We are the first and only part of Parliament to debate an issue which is causing considerable concern in the country.
During my 13 years as leader of a council—as we are all making these declarations, let me say that it was not in the last century—the most that I ever received as leader was £4,500 a year, and I was not then able to join a pension scheme. Frankly, it would not have been worth very much if I had. One of the things that I learnt early on was that one should never try to defend the indefensible. My sympathies go to the Minister who will have to reply to this debate, which is not of her own choosing. We all have great sympathy with her for having the task of trying to defend the indefensible.
For the last time in your Lordships’ House I declare my interest as a serving councillor, for a few more days, and as someone who joined my council’s pension scheme at the age of 60—an age when most people would think of starting to draw a pension rather than joining a pension scheme. In two weeks’ time I shall start to receive the handsome pension that I have earned in the 10 years since joining the scheme.
Lord Vinson (Con)
I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to give way and clarify a point. If a councillor in the future does not wish to take part in a pension scheme, or is not allowed to, surely he could use the contributions that he would have made to buy a personal pension. Would that not alleviate the problem to some extent?
Lord Tope
I will come to that later, but yes, it has always been the case, and will remain the case, that a councillor, like any other individual, may join a private pension scheme and pay for it from such income as he or she may have. Of course that will remain the case. However, when these regulations are agreed, no councillor will have the choice of being able to join a local government pension scheme in future. That is the issue before us today.
In my 40 years as a councillor I have never known councillors of all parties to be so angry about a measure, and I use the word angry deliberately. There have been many occasions, perhaps too many, over those 40 years when councillors have been cross or angry with central government of all parties for political reasons—that is par for the course—but in this case it is personal because councillors feel personally about it. That struck me at a meeting which I attended not so long ago where the majority of councillors in the room—it was not my local authority; there were councillors from all over the country—were not in a local government scheme because many of their councils had decided not to admit councillors to it. They were, if anything, more angry—certainly they expressed more anger—than those who were in the scheme, perhaps because they did not feel inhibited by any personal interest. Let us therefore not underestimate the extent of the anger of councillors of all parties throughout the country, regardless of whether they have the opportunity to join a pension scheme or have availed themselves of that opportunity. It is real and profound.
We have had a good debate today even if it has been a little one-sided apart from the interventions by my noble friend Lady Hanham and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I shall not take time to repeat the excellent points that have been made, but I certainly echo and agree with most of them. They have been well made.
Before this debate I inquired for the first time of my own authority how many of my colleagues are in my local council’s pension scheme and how much it costs the council as I had no idea. I learnt that 29 of 54 Sutton councillors are members of the pension scheme and that for the last full financial year it cost the London Borough of Sutton £90,000 in employer’s contributions towards its councillors’ pensions. Although £90,000 is a significant sum—I shall certainly not refer to it as peanuts—when you compare it to the £26 million of cuts which my council still has to find in the next two years it is of rather less significance.
I should like to make more strongly a point which has already been made—that it is comparatively easy to sit in government departments in Westminster and decide to cut budgets by so many millions or, in this case, to reduce grants to local authorities in total by so many billions. I say that it is comparatively easy because it is a lot easier than sitting in a crowded room with a hostile public gallery composed of people who are directly affected by the budget cuts you have to make and deciding how to implement those cuts which are not of your choosing—cuts that you were never elected to make or wanted to stand for election to make.
We are rewarding the people who have to make those decisions—thank goodness it will not be me in the years to come—by taking away their right to join a workplace pension. What spectacular timing for my Government to choose to make those cuts. I think that that is why councillors of all parties are so angry.
I should like to spend a little time returning to the first contribution after the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, from my former London Assembly colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I also want to talk about the position of the Mayor of London and London Assembly members. I again declare an interest. I was elected to the London Assembly, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, when it started in 2000. Unlike her, I also had the pleasure of spending hour after hour on what is now the Greater London Authority Act. This is the crucial difference between London Assembly members and councillors. The GLA Act 1999 recognised that Assembly members were full-time, salaried people and gave them the entitlement to join a pension scheme. In 2000, the Senior Salaries Review Body decided that the appropriate and best-value scheme for them to join was the Local Government Pension Scheme. As a London Assembly member I joined a pension scheme three years before I was allowed to join the scheme run by my local council. I did that because Parliament gave me the right to do so. I think that that is a significantly different position from that of the councillors, much as I agree with it.
When the Government’s intention regarding this matter was originally announced, the GLA—the mayor and Assembly members—was not included. Incidentally, the announcement was tucked away at the same time as the announcement on the 2012 revenue support grant, on the last day of the 2012 Session. If we were burying bad news, that was the day to do it. The announcement did not refer to them, I think it was assumed, because of the GLA Act to which I have just referred. When the consultation came out, we were all astonished to see that it did refer to the London mayor and Assembly members. Most of us assumed—certainly I assumed—that it was a mistake in CLG and it would be recognised, corrected and would not persist.
However, it has persisted and we are now in the position that London Assembly members are to lose their right to join the Local Government Pension Scheme along with all councillors. However, they do not lose the entitlement to a pension scheme that they are granted under the GLA Act. We are now in the position that the Greater London Authority has to find an alternative pension arrangement for its Assembly members. It has to do that, regardless of these regulations. I have not been an Assembly member for some years and am not party to the detailed consideration that is being given to that point. However, I learnt that the GLA had inquired of the Prudential what it would cost for Assembly members and the mayor to join a scheme with similar benefits. The answer—certified, I gather, by the Government Actuary—was that it would cost more than double the current cost to the GLA. How on earth is that in the taxpayer’s interest? It is demonstrably not in the interests of the GLA, Assembly members or the Mayor of London. As this is supposed to be about taxpayer-funded pensions, I have to ask this question. I gave notice of this question and hope the Minister will explain how he believes that this measure is in the taxpayer’s interest.
The other point about the Mayor of London has already been made. It is always difficult to talk about the Mayor of London without immediately bringing to mind the two personalities that have so far held that office. Probably none of us is going to worry too much about their personal pensions and I suspect that they will not either. However, does anyone seriously equate the person who holds the office of Mayor of London with a volunteer? He is not obliged to be Mayor of London. He does not have to stand for election to become mayor—that is voluntary—but once he becomes mayor, is anyone seriously going to say that it is a volunteer activity? Of course it is not; that is nonsense. The man is paid a salary equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister, and yet his pension rights are going to be changed—not taken away, because the law does not allow that, but changed to a much greater extent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to councillors and the work that they do. Unlike all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate, I have never been a councillor or worked in local government, but my granddad was a councillor in Beeston during the late 1940s and early 1950s. I never knew him but, when I was a little girl and out with my dad, older people in Beeston would often remark that they had known my granddad and tell me about some of the things that he had achieved for the people of Beeston. They never mentioned politics or his party, but they were very keen to reinforce that he had changed things for the better as a councillor.
Unlike me, other DCLG Ministers have direct experience of local government. All have been councillors and many of them have been leaders of councils; that includes my noble friend and respected predecessor Lady Hanham, who was leader of Kensington and Chelsea and also my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who was with me on the Front Bench earlier. She takes her title from the council that she led. They know what it is like to be a councillor. They understand what it means to represent people locally and the importance of that role. They know that it extends from being at the front line of a national crisis, such as the recent floods, to spending hours every week listening to local people and doing what they can to help on matters that may seem minor to outsiders but are of major importance to those affected.
I had the privilege—and I do underscore that word—to hear my right honourable friend the Secretary of State Eric Pickles pay tribute to councillors with real enthusiasm at the LGA’s annual reception in Parliament only the other week. I have heard him in private in ministerial meetings, particularly during the flooding crisis, stand up for councillors and all that they were doing at that time. I reiterate to noble Lords and to the House this afternoon that everyone in the Department for Communities and Local Government understands and respects the work of councillors. All of us understand that councillors do all this excellent work voluntarily as elected representatives of local people.
This debate relates to the provision in the Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions, Savings and Amendment) Regulations, which, as we have heard, excludes councillors and other elected local officeholders from membership of the new Local Government Pension Scheme. It may be helpful to highlight to noble Lords that those regulations also serve a broader purpose. In June 2010, the Government invited the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, to chair the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. The purpose of the commission was to carry out a fundamental structural review of public service pension provision and to make recommendations on pension arrangements that would be sustainable and affordable in the long term. Further to the commission’s recommendations, I am pleased to be able to tell noble Lords that the new scheme for local government workers came into operation, on time, on 1 April this year. Importantly, the design of the new scheme will ensure that the large number of low-paid workers in local government will continue to have access to good pension arrangements that are affordable for them.
The new Local Government Pension Scheme, like its predecessor, is an occupational pension scheme intended for employees, who make a contribution alongside the employer’s contribution, which is paid by taxpayers. This Government do not believe that councillors, as representatives elected locally to hold town halls to account and to serve local people, should be in a pension scheme designed for employees. It is on this point of principle that Ministers take a fundamentally different view to the previous Administration. We do not believe it is right to blur the line between council staff and elected councillors.
That point has been heard before and has been referred to by noble Lords during the debate this afternoon; indeed, my noble friend Lady Hanham reinforced the point in her contribution. Contrary to the contributions of noble Lords today, it seems that the vast majority of councillors agree with this Government, because only 16% of councillors in England are part of the Local Government Pension Scheme. To put it another way, only 30% of those eligible to join are members of the scheme. This Government want all councillors to have the full opportunity to demonstrate, as the vast majority already do, that they are independent and not reliant on the municipal payroll.
We made our position clear when we first announced the proposals in December 2012. I was not going to make this point, but as my noble friend Lord Tope said with tongue in cheek that this was a good day to bury bad news, it is worth reminding noble Lords that he said that because the previous Government announced their decision to provide access to the Local Government Pension Scheme on the day of 9/11. I hope that my noble friend is not seriously saying that the last working day before Christmas—a day when we were in any case publishing the local government financial settlement in documents which all people interested in local government activity were waiting for—is the same as 9/11. When we announced our intentions, Ministers indicated the Government’s view that councillors’ ongoing membership of the Local Government Pension Scheme was not appropriate. The Government’s direction of travel has been clear since then.
The Government have, of course, sought views on this change. Between April and June last year, we consulted with a wide range of interested parties. Although the consultation made clear the Government’s preferred position, it also invited respondents to offer evidence about the impact of the change and to suggest alternative proposals. It is fair to say, as noble Lords have made clear this afternoon, that a majority of respondents did not support the Government’s proposals. Many—particularly some councillors and those representing them—felt strongly that they should be able to continue to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. However, it is worth pointing out to noble Lords that only 472 individual councillors felt moved to write as part of the consultation to express their opposition, which is fewer than 3% of the around 18,000 councillors in England.
We have heard today some reasons why those who oppose these changes do so, but it is important to go back to the previous Labour Government’s decision to make it possible for councillors to access the scheme and the reason they outlined for making this change and creating this access. In his Written Ministerial Statement in 2003, Nick Raynsford talked about the change being brought in to address what he described as disincentives. This change was intended to incentivise more people to come forward to stand as councillors but, as I have already said, only 16% of all councillors in England have taken up the offer. If the previous Government decided to make this change to provide an incentive, it clearly has not succeeded. If it was about incentive, then why have more councils and councillors not decided to take up the opportunity?
The LGA and some noble Lords have argued that, if we withdraw access to the scheme, people will not put themselves forward to be councillors. We disagree with that and, indeed, are not aware of any strong evidence that offering access to the scheme has resulted in any change in the number of people putting themselves forward for public service. Similarly, we are not aware of any strong evidence that ending access to the scheme will limit the number of people standing for local election.
I note in particular the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shipley and other noble Lords about the upcoming local elections. I think it was one of my noble friends who suggested that this change was somehow an insult to those who were minded to put themselves forward and that we were doing something that would deter people. The facts do not bear that out. In the forthcoming local council elections in England, we see an extra 1,000 candidates standing compared to when those seats were last fought—an additional 1,000 people have decided it is worth their while to put themselves forward to represent local people even though they will no longer be able to access the Local Government Pension Scheme. People become councillors because they want to serve their communities, because they want to change things or because they may have clear, strong political beliefs.
The leader of the Opposition in the other place, Mr Miliband, has tabled an Early Day Motion calling not only for councillors to be reinstated in the scheme, as the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, does today, but for annulling the new pension arrangements in toto—the new arrangements that will benefit low-paid local government workers. My noble friend Lord Bourne made the point that these changes that the Government are introducing are providing some savings. I am happy to acknowledge that the savings are modest, but they are none the less savings. It is important for us to understand whether the Labour Opposition are now committing to reinstating councillors’ access to the Local Government Pension Scheme, were they to be elected. It would be interesting to know, when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, comes to respond, whether that is something they will be campaigning on in the remaining few days before the local elections on 22 May.
This Government do not believe that people choose to enter local public life in order to have access to the Local Government Pension Scheme. I know that no one in this debate is suggesting otherwise. However, given the focus and energy that has been spent on this issue, I worry that there is a risk that we give the public the impression that this is the case. We need to be quite careful on this matter.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Could the Minister clear up the point about whether the Mayor will stay in as a police and crime commissioner?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As Mayor of London, some of his functions are similar to those of police and crime commissioners. However, he is not regarded as a police and crime commissioner for the purposes of the Local Government Pension Scheme. His status is as mayor and not as a PCC.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The point about police and crime commissioners—this is an area which, in due course, we will want to examine—is that, since they were recently created, we felt that it was not appropriate to make this change at this time. I do not assume that it will be something that will be left unattended for ever.
My noble friend Lord True asked, when we were talking about savings, about the publicity budget for my department. He suggested that somebody in the Box would have the answer. Because I have a great bunch of officials with me, yes, indeed, I do have the answer, which is £2.5 million—which I would guess is a whole lot less than it was under the previous Government.
I can assure the House that the Government did not take this decision lightly. We certainly looked carefully at transitional arrangements for those councillors who are in the pension scheme. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, dismissed the concessions that we made following consultation that will see that existing members will leave the scheme only at the end of their existing fixed four-year term of office. That means that councillors’ membership of the scheme will be phased out between 2014 and 2017 and that no change to the reasonable expectations that councillors had when they ran for their fixed term will be made. I can also confirm to my noble friend Lord Vinson that he is right that nothing will stop councillors contributing to a personal private pension in future, but the key point is that they will not be able to join a scheme to which taxpayers contribute as their employers.
I firmly believe that the best thing we can do to encourage more people to take part in municipal public life is to decentralise power to local communities so that being a councillor is an even more meaningful and rewarding role. We need to attract and retain a wide range of enthusiastic councillors, and I agree with noble Lords who said that this is important. When we are talking about ensuring that we have a wide range of councillors—in fact my noble friend is back with me on the Front Bench—it is worth noting that one of her successors as leader of Trafford Council is 26 years old, comes from a modest background and put himself through university. It is simply not true to suggest that people do not want to put themselves forward to become councillors.
The reason we are starting to attract a wide range of people is that this Government have made many changes to local authorities that mean that councillors are in a greater position to deliver change. For example, we have abolished the Audit Commission and government offices. This means that councillors can rightly focus on meeting the needs of local people, rather than spending their time dancing to the tune of central government. We have introduced new rights for communities to lead and deliver change, including through neighbourhood planning. This gives exciting opportunities for councillors to support and encourage local people to help them deliver their own aspirations.
The noble Lord may laugh, but neighbourhood plans are seeing a fantastic turnout at referendums, when local people know that, as a result of getting engaged, they will see change and will be able to take control of decisions in their local area. We have introduced the general power of competence. This means that councillors now have greater scope to do things to meet local people’s needs. We have helped councillors better represent their constituents and better enrich local democratic debate by scrapping the Standards Board and clarifying the rules on predetermination. These are just a few examples of the steps this Government have taken to strengthen the contribution that councillors can make to their communities.
The LGA briefing note that was distributed to noble Lords prior to this afternoon’s debate said that,
“76% of people trust their local councillor the most to make decisions about how services are provided in their areas”.
That is great news, and the reason for that kind of result is that councillors have the power to lead their communities, to speak for their communities and to deliver for their communities. That is a very good thing.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for being remiss in not recognising her first appearance on the Front Bench on CLG matters. Despite the fact that this is an emotive subject, the debate has been fulsome, knowledgeable and very measured.
We recognise that the Minister today paid fulsome tribute to the role of councillors, but part of the problem with this whole issue is that some of her colleagues did not display the same attitude, and certainly not in presenting and developing the pensions issue that we are discussing today. Also, the concept that somehow people are rushing to stand for election because of the abolition of the Audit Commission is a little far-fetched. The issue about the numbers of people standing is not perhaps so much whether there are new people wanting to come forward but how many people are not standing who stood before because of the financial pressures and challenges of being in local government today. We have not heard anything new from the Minister—that is not to be expected, perhaps—in justification of the policy the Government are pursuing here.
On this issue of not being reliant on the municipal payroll, if there is not some basis for elected members to earn a living, will we not end up in a situation where only the rich, the retired and—less so these days—those with benevolent employers who are happy to give their employees lots of time off can serve in local government? There must be some form of remuneration. Is not the issue about pensions the general point that if we encourage people in all other spheres to save for a private pension because the state will not be able to produce enough for them to have a full retirement, why—in the words in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who is not in his place—are councillors being discriminated against in that respect?
I will pick up on some comments from other noble Lords. I think all but two who spoke were in support of the proposition before us today. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised a very important point about the mayor and PCCs, although that has been clarified. The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, reminded us that we should be careful about how we use the term “volunteer”, and I take that point. The problem is that the Government, in characterising what local councillors do as “volunteering” in the same category as some of the work done in the voluntary sector, undervalue, underestimate and do not recognise the role and responsibilities that councillors undertake in the modern era. That is the key point.
The noble Lord asked whether we would commit to bringing this back, and I think the Minister said that we were in favour of scrapping the 2014 revised scheme. Was that what she said?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The point I made was that that EDM that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place tabled goes beyond the narrow scope of the regret Motion that the noble Lord tabled today and prays against the regs completely.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Let me make it absolutely clear that it is my party’s position that we support the revised Local Government Pension Scheme. So far as these arrangements are concerned and whether we would reinstate this, I cannot give a blanket commitment that we would. No incoming Government would do that without looking across the piece at all the things that must be addressed. More particularly, the Local Government Pension Scheme is currently under consultation to restructure on a more effective, collaborative basis. That is part of the Government’s consultation. We do not yet know how and where that will lead. Also, the consequence of the Government’s position is that councillors will be driven into the private pensions market. How readily that can be unpicked would be a real issue as well, particularly because small pension pots stranded in private sector schemes cannot be transferred back into the local government scheme. A raft of issues would, quite properly, need to be considered.
My noble friend Lord Beecham, with his usual incisive approach, reminded us that Conservative legislation laid the groundwork for some of these proposals and that it depends upon independent panels enabling members to become part of the Local Government Pension Scheme at the moment.
Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Measure, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
Motion
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, every few years, the General Synod produces a miscellaneous provisions Measure in order to excite the general population. Its purpose is to sweep up all those small and uncontroversial legislative changes that would not in themselves justify stand-alone legislation, but which appear to be either necessary for the purposes of clarifying or simplifying the law or administratively or practically convenient. This is the 11th such Measure. It covers a wide range of topics, and I do not propose to cover them all, but only to highlight a few of the most important.
There are several provisions in the Measure relating to clergy. Clause 8 inserts new provisions in the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967, enabling the archbishop of the relevant province to revoke a permission granted to an overseas priest or deacon. The Measure also provides for the grant of general permissions in circumstances where large numbers of overseas clergy are visiting England at the same time—for example, the Lambeth Conference every 10 years. Clause 11 inserts a new appeal procedure into the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) Measure 1977 to ensure that the proceedings under the Measure are fair to incumbents. The amendment in Clause 12 to the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986 simplifies the procedure for appointing a priest in charge as the incumbent of a benefice where the patron does not object to the proposal to use the simplified procedure.
There are some practical changes in relation to the faculty jurisdiction. Clause 6 makes new provision for the qualifications necessary to become the chancellor of a diocese or the Dean of the Arches and Auditor, because the old provisions have simply become obsolete. Clause 7 makes new provision enabling the chancellor of a diocese to grant a faculty authorising works to a monument which has become dangerous, even if the owner of the monument withholds consent. That resolves the present unsatisfactory provision, which requires the court to choose between allowing the monument to be removed from a church by an owner who will not consent to works but indicates that he or she is willing to remove the monument and, on the other hand, allowing the monument to remain in the church in a dangerous state.
The Measure also includes a number of provisions relating to the Church Commissioners. Most of those are for administrative convenience in the management of their own affairs or small extensions to their existing powers, such as the amendment of Section 6 of the Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976, to enable them to pay the expenses of office of an archdeacon, in addition to their existing power to pay an archdeacon’s stipend.
However, one provision that perhaps requires additional comment is Clause 4, which inserts provisions into the Church Commissioners Measure 1947 and the Clergy Pensions Measure 1961 confirming that both the Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board have power to enter into derivative contracts. The need for this provision has arisen because in recent years both bodies have had increasing difficulty in persuading potential counterparties that they have the necessary powers to buy derivatives. It is important to say that neither body proposes to speculate in derivatives; they wish to use them purely as a way of managing risks arising in their investments—for example, by hedging against changes in interest rates. This does not represent a shift in investment strategy but an enabling of it.
Clause 16 makes some amendments to the powers of the Dioceses Commission to deal with some small lacunae that were discovered in the Dioceses, Pastoral and Mission Measure 2007 when the scheme for the new diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales was prepared.
Finally, at Clause 14, the Measure makes provision amending the Cathedrals Measure 1999 to confer power on cathedrals to resolve to adopt a total return basis for the investment of their endowment funds. This provision brings cathedrals into line with charities regulated by the Charity Commission, which have power to make such resolutions in accordance with regulations made by the Charity Commission under the Trusts (Capital and Income) Act 2013. The power conferred on cathedrals is very similar to that conferred on other charities, save that cathedrals will not have the power that other charities have to borrow a portion of their permanent endowment and repay it into the investment fund at a later date, as there were concerns that that might be controversial.
As I intimated, the Measure may not be the highlight of your Lordships’ week, but I beg to move.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly intervene to echo a word of caution that I uttered when this Measure was before the Ecclesiastical Committee. It concerns Clause 4, to which the right reverend Prelate alluded. I accept absolutely that the church has successfully and necessarily dealt in derivatives in the past without mishap. However, I noticed that provision is also made for the commissioners, in subsection (3) of new Section 6A of the Church Commissioners Measure 1947—and by similar means, in Clause 4(2) of this Measure, for the clergy pensions board—to empower the commissioners and the clergy pensions board to change the provisions that are now before your Lordships to widen the terms, the definition of derivatives that we have before us to approve, to embrace an undefined group of instruments which do not yet exist.
Your Lordships will remember that such an extension was made not so very long ago by very senior, highly respected and successful bankers in the international community about derivatives composing third-rate American unsecured mortgages. The result of that was catastrophic. It very nearly destroyed the whole world’s banking system and did a great deal of harm to a great many people. Those were wise, experienced, sensible people—at least, a large number of them must have been because there were so many. It is no reflection on the financial abilities of the board, the commission and their advisers to say that these things can be very dangerous. It is rather like going into a shop where there is a basket full of toys, but one or two of them are hand grenades. The great danger is that people do not spot the difference.
Although one is reassured by the undertaking given in the discussion of the Measure before the Ecclesiastical Committee that the church’s representatives will never deal in instruments that they do not understand, one must recognise that the bankers of the world could have said exactly the same thing a week before they actually caused the catastrophe. I am saying this because, if a measure is proposed within the Church of England to avail itself of that extension, I hope that this warning shall be read by those doing so, so that they will be reminded of what these things can do and treat them with very great care.
Lord Williams of Elvel (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene only to refer to Section 19 of the Measure, which refers to the Lady Margaret Professorship at Oxford. I have to declare some sort of interest, in that my father was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Christ Church. It seems to me that we cannot let that go entirely without some sort of obituary. The professorship was set up by Lady Margaret Beaufort, who, your Lordships will no doubt recall, was the mother of Henry VII. It has been a distinguished post in the history of Oxford, of Christ Church and of divinity and theology. After my father, and before he became archbishop, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, who was the previous archbishop to my stepson, was Lady Margaret Professor.
It is, in a way, a sad obituary for something that was set up and operated so well in so many theological contexts. It allowed professors to deliberate and preach in the security of the residence of Christ Church. It is a pity that it should go. However, there it is. As they say, the caravan moves on. All I would ask of the right reverend Prelate is that he explains what will happen to that rather attractive priory house where my father lived and I was brought up. I would be interested in what Christ Church believes it should do with it. Other than that, I simply say, “Lady Margaret Beaufort, farewell”.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I am grateful for those two contributions. To my noble friend Lord Elton I say, yes, a concern has been expressed to me about what the impact of this would be. It is as well to be clear what we do at the moment—what the Church Commissioners, for instance, are using derivatives for. They use them for three things: the hedging of foreign currency, the hedging of interest rate risks and as a means of taking shares in particular companies—preparation for buying equities themselves. So they make very limited use of derivatives. They are certainly not in the business of speculation.
It is worth understanding that trying to draw up an adequate measure that would cover the variety of uses that might be needed in future meant that it was not possible to be too specific. If we had been very specific in drawing up legislation, it would have required a much more substantial measure to identify each of the financial instruments that might have had to be named. That would have taken us another two or three years: to go through the General Synod, through Parliament, et cetera. Therefore, we tried to give ourselves sufficient width, recognising that the Church Commissioners and the pensions board are not into speculation, and that they have pledged to enter only schemes that they understand. I think that was a significant problem in 2008. We therefore have reasonable safeguards here, recognising always that the Charity Commissioners require charities such as the Church Commissioners to act only in the best interests of the charity itself and not like individuals who might be entering speculative regions.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that I am very sorry about the Lady Margaret Professorship departing. He gave it a good obituary. It is a sign that good theology is now much more broadly spread across the population. It is not just an ordained preserve: lay and/or ordained theologians are excellent and serving the church and the world. So I agree that the caravan has moved on and will say only that this is where we have moved to and that lay theologians as well as ordained ones are entitled to live in the lovely house.
With those very few comments, I am happy simply to ask the House to approve the Motion.
Coalition Government: Constitution Committee Report
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jay of Paddington
That this House takes note of the Report of the Constitution Committee on Constitutional implications of coalition government (5th Report, HL Paper 130).
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to open the debate on this important report in this, the last week of my chairmanship of the Select Committee on the Constitution. The debate gives me the opportunity not only to thank all the witnesses who gave us valuable evidence in our wide-ranging inquiry, but also to express my overall gratitude to everyone associated with the committee during my four years as chairman. It has been a great privilege to work with the senior members of the House who have served on the committee. They have been very assiduous in their activities and made consistently distinguished contributions to our work. I am delighted that several of them are taking part in this debate. As members of the committee we have been extremely well supported, too, by our officials and by our legal and specialist advisers, all of whom have given us first-class assistance and advice. I would like to congratulate them on their work, as well as thank them.
This report is the result of one of the most significant inquiries the Constitution Committee has conducted in this Parliament, and as the Parliament enters its final year its conclusions and recommendations are particularly timely. Today, as noble Lords are well aware, we are constantly told by the party leaders that no one is contemplating the possibility of another hung Parliament in 2015: all are fighting for single-party victory. This may well be the ambition, but is it the reality? The committee naturally understands that, following another unclear election result, much will be determined by the politics of the day. However, we think there should be greater clarity about a number of constitutional questions before the end of this Parliament, and certainly before polling day in 2015. The opportunities for so-called “muddling through” in a traditional British way should be much reduced. Of course, the date of the next election is so certain because the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is now in operation. That Act has been the backdrop to the present coalition Government and to our inquiry, and I will return to its effect on the issues we examined later in my speech.
We looked at other changes in constitutional practice, which, for better or worse, may become permanent changes even when a future majority Government are in power. The committee’s intention is for our report to offer analysis and conclusions which should provide valuable guidance on what could become a more regular feature of British politics. As your Lordships appreciate, with an unwritten constitution many of the rules and conventions of Parliament and government are based on precedent. It is worth reminding the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, reminded the committee, that this is the first peacetime coalition Administration since 1931, and the first ever coalition that has been the product of arithmetic following a general election. The last hung Parliament was in 1974 and that decade—the 1970s—experienced both minority Governments and arrangements on supply and confidence between parties in the House of Commons—arrangements which some have suggested sit more comfortably with our long-held conventions of Cabinet government.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with his personal experience of 1970s government, was one of our witnesses who supported this position and I am pleased that he is going to make a contribution to the debate in the gap. It remains to be seen if contemporary experience encourages today’s politicians to look at other solutions for government after an inconclusive election.
Our report covers four main areas. First, we look at the process of government formation after a hung election. Secondly, we examine proposals which aim to enhance the legitimacy of future coalition agreements. Thirdly, we consider how government and Parliament have and should operate under a coalition. Finally we address certain issues that we think will arise in the next few months, towards the end of the Parliament.
I begin with government formation. The House is aware that a succession of one-party Governments elected with large majorities has produced a modern expectation that Administrations change very quickly. The brutal, if effective, so-called “removal van in Downing Street” approach has meant that Prime Ministers are usually in their new place in less than 24 hours after the polls close. Evidently that was not the case in 2010, when negotiations took five days to conclude. We were told in evidence that all the parties felt under great pressure, particularly from the financial markets and the media, to conclude negotiations as quickly as possible. There was pressure on the Prime Minister to resign swiftly, with press headlines such as “The squatter in No. 10”, yet a period of five days for negotiation was by international standards very short. We concluded that although a Government should be formed as promptly as possible, five days should certainly not be seen as a template period for government formation after future hung elections. We were concerned by the lack of public and media understanding about the time that it takes to form a Government in these circumstances.
In particular, our witnesses told us that it was not only perfectly constitutionally proper for an incumbent Prime Minister to remain in office until the identity of a new Government was clear but that there is in some sense an expectation that he will do so. The Constitution Committee felt that—if only, frankly, to protect themselves as well as improve public understanding—the party leaders and managers should try to get these points across, particularly to the media, before the next election in May 2015.
One notable senior figure who thought ahead about the possibility of an inconclusive election was the then Cabinet Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who I am very pleased to see contributing to today’s debate. Several of our witnesses paid tribute to his foresight in starting to plan for the outcome of the election. Importantly, arrangements were put in place for Civil Service support to be made available to any parties that were involved in post-election negotiations. In the event, the Conservative and Liberal negotiators took up logistical support only; they did not take up the offer of advice or briefings. On the other hand, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, whose contribution I look forward to, about the experience in Scotland where the parties had fully taken up the offer of Civil Service support and found it very helpful indeed. Our report recommends that official advice should be automatically available after future hung Parliaments at Westminster. Clearly, it would be for the parties to decide what level of support they would take up but it should certainly not be up to the incumbent Prime Minister to grant this opportunity. We recommend that the current Government should commit in advance to make Civil Service support available, if necessary. I hope that the Minister will be able to give that commitment today.
Today’s coalition Government have often been questioned about their democratic legitimacy. No one voted for a coalition and it is argued that the coalition agreement of 2010 does not have the same status as the manifesto of a party that won a majority at the election. Some of our witnesses, albeit those from an academic rather than a political standpoint, suggested ways of closing a possible constitutional gap in legitimacy. One proposal was that after an election, the House of Commons should hold an investiture vote for a new Prime Minister; another that the Commons should vote formally to approve a coalition agreement. The committee did not accept these ideas. We thought that a prime ministerial investiture vote would risk making our system of government even more presidential and concluded that a traditional vote on the first Queen’s Speech is the appropriate test of whether the House of Commons has confidence in the Government and therefore approves a coalition programme.
I turn to those parts of the report which deal with the way in which the coalition Government have impacted on our constitutional understandings about how government and Parliament work in practice. Undoubtedly, the most dramatic departure from constitutional norms under this Government has been, as we heard, the frequent breaches of the convention of collective ministerial responsibility—a convention which is at the heart of Cabinet government. Noble Lords will recall that breaches have occurred on significant matters, such as the saga of the constituency boundary review where the Deputy Prime Minister unilaterally told Liberal Democrat parliamentarians to vote against a measure which, until then, had been seen as agreed government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, whose involvement in this debate I am also grateful for, said in his evidence to us that that was “outrageous”.
However, on the Conservative side we have also seen the remarkable event of Ministers being allowed to abstain on a vote on the Queen’s Speech and therefore in effect not being required to defend the Government’s agreed legislative programme. Other witnesses spoke of the debate on the report by Lord Justice Leveson on the press, when the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spoke successively from the same House of Commons Dispatch Box, but on different sides of the issue. Noble Lords will recall a similar situation in this House. There have been many more examples, yet in the current Parliament no Minister has resigned or been asked to resign because they have not been prepared to accept agreed government policy.
The committee considered whether this meant that collective responsibility should be explicitly set aside under a coalition Government. We also debated whether the principle should be generally downgraded in 21st-century politics, even when a majority Government are in power. We concluded that this would be a fundamental constitutional mistake. After all, the convention of collective responsibility is primarily important because it enables Parliament fully to hold the Government responsible for all their actions and policies. It means that Ministers cannot wriggle out of responsibility by saying that a certain decision was taken by another Minister and that they had nothing to do with it. Moreover, the committee agreed that the process of collective decision-making, which is an essential part of the convention, is more likely to lead to good government than making decisions in isolation.
I remind the House that when the coalition was formed, the agreement identified five issues on which the two parties would be permitted to express different views. Processes were set out whereby this could happen but, since then, divergence between the parties on other issues has clearly happened without any proper process being followed. I would say that the present row on education policy is probably a vivid example. The committee, of course, recognised that it is inevitable that two different parties will disagree on certain issues but we think that the convention is sufficiently important for collective responsibility to be set aside only as a last resort. We recommend that when one party wants to ignore the convention it should take the matter to Cabinet, so that it is the Cabinet as a whole that agrees to set aside the convention. This should happen only on specific issues, and preferably for a limited period. We think that a process along these lines should be set out in any future coalition agreement. Those who argue that the lack of collective responsibility we have seen in the present Parliament simply illustrates the unsuitability of coalition government in our system undoubtedly have a point. Certainly, given what has happened in the last four years there is a need to be more explicit and transparent about arrangements in future.
Turning to the effect of the coalition on your Lordships’ House, we found one perhaps unexpected side-effect: the relative lack of senior Ministers in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, told us he had hoped that the number of senior Ministers in the Lords would increase over the Parliament, but in fact the opposite has happened. He regretted that, and so do we. Perhaps the noble Lord will expand on this point in his speech this evening.
The committee examined how the Salisbury/Addison convention should apply during coalitions, and we conclude that a coalition agreement does not have the same mandate from the electorate as the manifesto of a majority party. Therefore, the Salisbury/Addison convention does not apply to measures in a coalition agreement. Again, however, the committee recognised the political reality that a practice has evolved whereby the Lords does not normally block government Bills, whether they are in a manifesto or not. We saw no reason to dilute this practice when there is a coalition but still thought it important to state that a coalition agreement does not constitutionally equal a manifesto commitment.
The last chapter of our report looks at the final months leading up to the general election. It is worth reminding ourselves that, in the next year, we will be dealing with two unprecedented factors. First, we know exactly when polling day will be and, secondly, we have a peacetime coalition Government who proclaim that they will stay together until 5 May next year. The committee’s immediate conclusion is that the certainty about dates should cancel the need for the often unsatisfactory period of frantic legislation at the end of a Parliament. The legislation in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech in June should be planned so that the so-called wash-up is washed out. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as a previous Leader of the House, agreed with us. As I said, the prospect of two parties campaigning against each other while running the Government together is unprecedented and raises a number of political questions, which again the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, may shed light on from his experience in Scotland.
Once Parliament is dissolved and the formal campaign begins, the constitutional guidance on the purdah period is clear in the Cabinet manual. Our report emphasises that this guidance must be adhered to. When it comes to the different parties in government receiving advice from civil servants, we propose that a party with no Ministers in a particular department should be entitled to have contact with officials in that department in the same way as the Official Opposition would. This would prevent any party being disadvantaged in the run-up to the election.
As the committee’s report has demonstrated—although I have not covered every point—the constitutional effects of having a coalition Government have been profound. It should not of course be assumed that future hung Parliaments would automatically lead to a coalition Government; but, frankly, it would be naive for the political parties and others not to be taking that possibility into account.
I hope your Lordships appreciate that this inquiry by the Select Committee was extensive, and included evidence from a very wide range of authoritative witnesses. The report includes substantial analysis and practical recommendations on the basis both of our deliberations and the evidence we received. We published in mid-February and the report was designed to coincide with the conclusion of this parliamentary Session and the start of pre-election preparations. I am pleased that we have been able to debate it today, before Prorogation. However, I say to the Minister that I am extremely disappointed that the Government have failed to give any response to the report so far. It is a report of current interest and importance, yet the Government again have ignored the understood guidance, which asks for a response to Select Committee reports within two months of publication. Frankly, I regard that as not simply discourteous but, in this case, irresponsible.
During this Parliament the Constitution Committee has been disappointed by the Government in this way several times. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, can offer detailed comment on our recommendations when he replies tonight, but I am afraid that whatever is said will not be a substitute for a proper, written, official response.
I do not want to conclude on that disagreeable note; so I end by renewing my thanks to all who contributed to the report and to those who will speak in the debate today. It has been a great privilege for me to serve as chairman of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. It has also been enormously enjoyable, and I look forward to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. Perhaps I may be the first publicly to pay tribute to her time as chairman of such a distinguished committee as the House of Lords Constitution Committee. She has served with distinction, but she has also served at a most fascinating and interesting time. The noble Baroness reminded us that she has served for four years, which is a long time. In those four years we have seen constitutional innovation, to which the report alludes several times over.
As the noble Baroness explained, I gave evidence to the committee and read its report. One of the reasons I wanted to speak in this debate was to say how good I thought its conclusions were. It is extremely clear and well-written, and therefore effective. I am sorry to hear that the Government were unable to give a written response but I have great faith that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will be able to say that he, too, on behalf of the Government, thinks this a very positive report. There is much to take away, not just by politicians but by senior members of the Civil Service, particularly the Cabinet Office, if this thing—this coalition—ever happens again.
It was useful for the noble Baroness to remind us, as is written in the first paragraph of the report, what my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said about this being the first coalition to come about because of the arithmetic calculation after a general election. That demonstrates just how rare a coalition is in the United Kingdom. We have no reason to believe that it will necessarily happen again in the near future. It probably will not happen again, but I dare say that we ought, like the boy scouts, to be ever ready and ever prepared for it to happen again.
In May 2010 I was one of those who were initially sceptical about the desirability of having a coalition. I felt that my right honourable friend David Cameron probably could have carried on a minority Government, but that was not the prevailing view. It was said that people generally liked the idea of politicians sorting out their differences in private before coming to Parliament with an agreed set of proposals. Whether that is true in practice remains to be seen, but it is true that people like that idea. What else is true is that this coalition has been remarkably successful, particularly in barring the noises off, and has had huge success in reform of some of the most important parts of the public sector—education, welfare and health. What Government, within 12 months of a general election, would not be delighted to hear that the United Kingdom now has the fastest-growing economy in the G7; that there are more people in work today in Britain than ever before; that unemployment is falling; that the twin scourges of inflation and interest rates, which most of us have lived with for most of our lives, are at rock bottom; and that month by month, year by year, the deficit is being cut and we can see, over the horizon, a time when it will be eradicated? That is a success for the coalition.
I have no idea whether there will be another coalition Government. If there is, the only point with which I took minor issue was on the formation of a Government. It is important for the nation to have a Prime Minister and to know who that Prime Minister is as quickly as possible. We should not create a system that allows for a Prime Minister to linger on in 10 Downing Street for too long. If there is no pressure to come to an agreement on who the new Prime Minister should be, it could drag on for a very long time indeed. I cannot imagine that it was a pleasant experience for Mr Brown as Prime Minister to be twiddling his thumbs among the packing cases, waiting for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party to reach some sort of agreement. There is all the difference between the parties agreeing that there should be a coalition and that therefore there should be a Prime Minister, which should be announced as soon as possible, and for the Palace to do the all-important ceremony with which it needs to be involved, and the final troth being made on a coalition agreement and, most importantly, on what the terms of the first Queen’s Speech should be. I agree with the idea that there should be a longer time-lag between the general election and the Queen’s Speech. A period of 12 days was mentioned, which is perfectly sensible.
I want to make four observations on the report with regard to the House of Lords. The first relates to paragraph 145 and the Salisbury convention. The report admirably says and the noble Baroness repeated it:
“We recognise that a practice has evolved that the House of Lords does not normally block government bills, whether they are in a manifesto or not. There is no reason why this practice should not apply when there is a coalition government”.
I quite agree. In fact, that is my understanding of what the Salisbury convention has become and how it has developed over many years. There is a faint absurdity in this unelected Chamber denying ourselves the right to debate a Bill which has already been passed by the elected Chamber and we should not do it. One can imagine the truly appalling circumstances in which the House of Lords needs to reserve that right, but as a matter of course that should be part of the Salisbury convention. That is why I very much regret that in this Parliament it was the Official Opposition who supported the wrecking amendments on the Health and Social Care Bill. That was an extremely foolish and dangerous thing to do and should not have been done. When the Labour Party eventually gets back into government it should beware that an irresponsible group in the House of Lords does not hang that around its neck.
The second issue that I want to draw attention to is that of collective responsibility and the boundaries issue, which is eminently well described in paragraph 71. The paragraph refers to the evidence that I gave. I said that it was a “dirty trick”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that it was,
“a flagrant breach of an agreement”,
although he happily conceded that he was delighted that the Liberal Democrats had done so.
Either way—and I stand by what I said—what I dislike intensely in paragraph 71 is how David Laws MP prays in aid the collapse of the House of Lords Bill in the House of Commons. I just want to say that this is a desperate rewriting of history. The House of Lord Bill was passed in the Commons on a huge majority at Second Reading. Nearly 80% of MPs voted in favour of it. What happened thereafter was a failure of the Government and of the Minister who was responsible for it, the Deputy Prime Minister, to reach an agreement, particularly with the Opposition, on the programme motion. That was not the fault of a few dozen Conservative Members of Parliament. As we all know in this House, this issue was always going to be controversial and could never have been passed by one party acting on its own. It could have been passed only by agreement. If the Deputy Prime Minister had spent more time early on in the Parliament working with the shadow Cabinet and the Labour Party, he might have got that agreement.
I cannot help thinking that the issue of House of Lords reform became a convenient argument, and that is all, and that even if House of Lords reform had gone through, the Liberal Democrats would have found a different excuse for reneging on the deal that they had struck in the coalition agreement.
Baroness Grender (LD)
May I clarify something with the noble Lord? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister took the decision to withdraw from pushing ahead with the vote on the programme motion?
Lord Strathclyde
I am sure that is the case, but only on the basis that he knew it was going to be lost. He knew that the Minister responsible for the Bill could not guarantee that they had support from Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. That is why it collapsed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Is not the point here that up until now it has been accepted that it is an almost sacred duty on the part of Governments to implement Boundary Commission reports? The moment that we have political parties fiddling around with them for their party advantage, all is lost. What happened was therefore quite reprehensible and disgraceful.
Lord Strathclyde
Even more than that, my Lords, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth will remember well, for years and years the Liberal Democrats would lecture us and the people of this country on the monstrous unfairness of the electoral system, but they themselves then ensured that we now have the most unfair system because, as my noble friend suggested, they blocked the entirely correct work of the Boundary Commission.
The third point that I want to make is about Lords Ministers. Again, I very much agree with the conclusions of the report. The point is that over the past 30 or 40 years we have had many eminent and senior Ministers coming from the House of Lords, most recently under the Labour Government. This is good not just for the House of Lords but for the Government; it is good for the process of government to have senior Peers with a lot of experience—outside politics sometimes—who play a part. I understand the pressures within a coalition to provide ministerial seats in the House of Commons, but I have to say that in May 2010 when I went to Downing Street and was invited by the Prime Minister to take on the burden of Leader of the House of Lords, which of course I was delighted to do, I asked how many Liberal Democrats I should expect and I was very surprised to be told: absolutely none, because there had been an agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister that all the Liberal Democrat Ministers would be made in the House of Commons. There was a terrible silence as I realised that it was impossible to come back and sit on the Front Bench without my noble friend Lord McNally and other Liberal Democrats who have served so ably. There was a quick discussion and I am delighted to say that on the Front Bench in the coalition we have had a very effective team of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives working together. My regret is that very few of the Liberal Democrats are actually paid for the work that they do, particularly not the Whips. I very much hope that, whether we have another coalition or return to single-party government, more senior Peers will be represented in government as Ministers. That will ultimately be to the benefit of the nation.
The last point that I want to make is about the wash-up. That is an ugly little phrase to explain something that is extremely necessary and, on the whole, works effectively. It was much abused, I am sorry to say, in 2010 by the outgoing Labour Government—with some collusion, I have to accept, from the then Opposition. The purpose of the wash-up is to tidy up Bills as quickly as possible with the agreement of the whole House. It should not be for shovelling through vast swathes of legislation unscrutinised, undebated and not even discussed or indeed improved, and I hope that we do not see those days again. They could be circumstances if there is some emergency legislation that needs to be passed quickly but, again, that should always be done with the agreement of the usual channels in both Houses.
I have spoken for far longer than I intended to. Perhaps I may just finish by saying that, notwithstanding what I think has generally been the success in government of this coalition, I hope that we will not need another one but, if we do, that it should work effectively and smoothly in the interests of the good governance of this country. I think that the reading of this report by the Government and the Civil Service will be an effective way of ensuring that that happens.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for the presentation to your Lordships’ House today of this excellent report from the Constitution Committee. On behalf of perhaps all the devolved Administrations over recent years, I thank the committee for the opportunity to give evidence and to speak in this debate.
In addition to the experience over the past four years of coalition government in the United Kingdom, of course, the UK has also seen coalition government in different forms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over recent years. I was very pleased that the committee was willing to take that experience and use it, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, did in preparing for and then executing the discussions after the 2010 general election.
The committee’s report is thoughtful and balanced. I, too, hope that the Government and the Opposition will respond to the recommendations that have been made. I do not think that any of them should leave it until closer to the general election to do so. I hope that as well as getting a response today from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, at some point we will also receive a proper written response from the Government and that the official Opposition will consider this report and make public their views on it, too; all the political parties here have to address the issues that have been raised.
When I gave evidence to the committee I was reminded of an article I had written that was published on 15 May 2010, entitled “Ten tips for making coalition work”, based on my experience in Scotland shortly after the coalition agreement had been reached by Prime Minister Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Clegg. That experience came from being part of the first Cabinet in Scotland in 1999 and the coalition agreement that I like to describe as the “Add the Liberal Democrats on” coalition—because essentially Donald Dewar and colleagues had been in government and moved into the Scottish Parliament but did not have a majority there so they worked hard to secure the agreement of the Liberal Democrats, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to form a coalition for the first four years, which managed to survive three different First Ministers and a whole series of crises. It saw out its four years and implemented a raft of legislation that perhaps would have been seen as very ambitious back in May 1999 but made a real difference to Scotland.
Then came a very different coalition. Because of the way in which it came together it was essentially stronger, based on two manifestos that had really been written for the Scottish Parliament and that were about what was happening in Scotland at the time. The politicians knew each other and the Parliament well, and what they could achieve. In 2003 that coalition made a huge difference over four years in building a more confident and successful, and a healthier, Scotland.
The 10 tips that I outlined in that article focused primarily on three issues. One was trust: not just personal trust between—in my case—the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, but also between the parties to ensure that there was a working relationship on the Back Benches as well as on the Front Benches. Secondly, there was the important issue of dealing with compromises and disputes: the flexibility required in government to respond to events and to seize opportunities as they arise if they have not been foreseen. Thirdly, there was the absolutely vital issue of direction and a sense of purpose. Within that there was the necessity for a one-for-all, all-for-one approach to collective responsibility and the work of Ministers.
Had those tips not been very real in our coalition when I was First Minister in Scotland, it would not have been possible to lead the UK on the ban on smoking in public places or deal with a controversial issue such as in-migration to help reverse Scotland’s population decline and improve our economic performance so that we were ahead of the UK in GDP growth rather than behind it. We also made huge changes to our justice system and a legislative programme between 2003 and 2007—changes that were long overdue. Having a strong coalition can be effective, but it needs to have those key elements of trust, flexibility and collective responsibility to make it work well. That is why I agree strongly with the report from the Constitution Committee. I readily endorse all but one of the recommendations, and I will draw attention to three issues in particular.
The first is the role of the Civil Service in advance of and after an election. This will be a very real issue next year as the preparations for the general election get closer, and then in the post-election scenario that could well lead to similar discussions taking place again. The recommendation in paragraph 40 has my full support based on the experience in Scotland, and in London in 2010.
The second issue is one to which my noble friend Lady Jay did not refer: access to papers in future Administrations. A recommendation in paragraph 131 sets out the procedure that could be used following these five years of coalition government in order to ensure that both parties are treated fairly in the issue of access to ministerial papers under future Governments. This arrangement has been broken by the Scottish National Party Government in Scotland during these past seven years—I think quite disgracefully. Therefore, I enthusiastically support the recommendation of the committee. This issue should be agreed in advance of the general election in 2015, and whatever agreement is reached should be adhered to by whatever party is in government afterwards. The situation in Scotland today, where Nationalist Ministers see the papers of previous Administrations in advance of the previous Administration being consulted about public access to those papers, is disgraceful and should not be repeated in Whitehall or at Westminster.
The third issue that I want to mention is that of collective responsibility. In paragraphs 77 to 79, the committee makes valuable recommendations about the operation of collective responsibility. Over the past four years, we have seen the difficulties that can arise when collective responsibility is not adhered to, either publicly or in many cases privately and off the record under this coalition Government. One of the strengths of our coalition in Scotland was an adherence to collective responsibility, not just in public but in private, too. There were almost no instances of individual Ministers briefing against each other off the record to newspapers during my time as First Minister. That should be the case in all coalition Governments, so I strongly support the committee’s recommendations.
However, I do not agree with the committee on the parliamentary endorsement of the coalition agreement. Collective responsibility would be strengthened if a coalition agreement was put to a vote in Parliament, in addition to the vote on the Queen’s Speech and the legislative programme. So there I depart from the committee’s recommendations in paragraph 60, where it does not support that approach. I think that a parliamentary endorsement of the coalition agreement would be a very good thing.
There are 12 months to go until the 2015 general election. I can say right now that being in a coalition Government will get more difficult over those 12 months. I may be stating the obvious, but the final 12 months will be a real challenge for all concerned. However, it is not impossible for a coalition to stick together to the very end. I predicted in May 2010 that this coalition would stick together and I believe that it will. If those involved are mature enough to be able to set out mechanisms for working behind the scenes as well as in public and to continue to prioritise their programme for government, this coalition will last the full five years.
I hope that it does not experience too many difficulties during the election period. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and I did have an experience in April 2003 when we had to deal with an important emergency issue and make a decision, breaking off from the campaign trail and abusing each other in public to make an agreement in private to ensure that school meals in Scotland were adequately provided for following a change in the UK Budget. There will be moments when people have to talk in private and in public, but they should also be perfectly capable of campaigning against each other publicly and at the same time putting a proper choice to the voters for the next Government.
Like everybody else, I presume, I would have preferred that Labour had had a majority in the Scottish Parliament when I was First Minister, and we could have implemented more of our programme and less of the programme of others; but we did not. We had to compromise. We had to work with the result from the electorate. Despite the fact that at the time we were working in unusual circumstances, bringing together coalitions for the first time in the UK in peacetime, the reality was that we made a huge difference by putting the interests of Scotland ahead of our parties and making that Government work.
There was at least one benefit aside from implementing the programme. In a coalition government, some of the extremes that you see in a single-party Government—legislation not being properly thought through, the instincts of Prime Ministers or First Ministers going ahead of common sense and due deliberation inside the party, never mind outside it—are not there because the challenge between two parties in a coalition can improve in decision-making. While it may be frustrating and difficult at times, there can be benefits from a coalition Government; we should not put ourselves in a situation where we would regret or feel too disappointed about losing an opportunity to govern alone after the next general election in the UK. The country should come first.
The UK has many proud traditions that help us govern successfully and set an example of governance around the world. The protocols and conventions—parliamentary accountability, the principle of collective government responsibility and all the other issues addressed in this report—are examples of the way in which coalition government can work for the people for the country, not just for the politicians who assume their positions in that Government. I readily endorse the recommendations of the report and hope that the Government and the Official Opposition will take them on board in advance of May 2015.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I cannot help but start by thanking our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for the service that she has given to the House in chairing the Constitution Committee. Her seniority, her experience and, above all, her effortless charm in keeping us to the disciplines—there are quite strong personalities around the committee—were in play in almost every meeting. We will miss her. It will be very different to serve on the committee without the noble Baroness.
In 2010, I had the honour of being the first Liberal to speak from the government Benches in a new Parliament in the post-war period. The last time the Liberal Party had come into government was in the 1930s. Therefore, it has not been entirely surprising to me that Britain’s constitutional conventions over the past 80 years or so have been formed on the basis of single-party government. We had much material to work on in this inquiry but, as our report points out, the pluralism of party politics that the public have now embraced is a trend that may well continue for some time. Our inquiry therefore had not just to look carefully at the events of the past four years but to anticipate other permutations and formulations that might be thrown up in future.
In my coverage of the report, I want to highlight just a few points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave a comprehensive view of most of our findings but, particularly in the light of the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, it is important for me to illustrate and highlight some of the more dramatic moments in our deliberations on this report.
I was a member of the Constitution Committee at the time of its report on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. While I heard all the arguments, I continue to be slightly surprised that the idea of a fixed term continues to frustrate constitutionalists in some quarters. If it affects government formation negotiations by making parties look at alternatives to minority government, surely that is a good thing. Minority government is the antithesis of the stability in decision-making that is needed for the economy, business and policy planning; in my own area of work, it is seen as extremely damaging to the conduct of foreign affairs. That is not the reason why the public are opposed to it, but we also know that the public are opposed to repeat elections. I therefore agree with two of our witnesses, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Oliver Letwin, who told us that having fixed-term Parliaments allowed Governments to plan for five years, thereby enabling them to think long term.
I also emphasise the importance that the committee placed on the right versus the duty of an incumbent Prime Minister to remain in office until a successor is identified, particularly as we come up to the 2015 general election. The one observation that I would make in that regard is that, given the language deployed in the media in referring to an incumbent Prime Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, gave us some of the colourful highlights relating to the previous Prime Minister—it would be extremely helpful if the Cabinet Office undertook to advise the media on the desirability of this expectation and its place in our constitutional framework.
Let me turn to the convention of collective ministerial responsibility. We had a lively discussion with experts, witnesses and among ourselves about this during the inquiry. The report mentions the departures from collective ministerial responsibility as seen in 2013 when the two parties of the coalition voted in opposite Lobbies on an amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. That decision was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister some six or seven months earlier as a response to the collapse of the House of Lords Reform Bill, so it did not come entirely as a surprise. I would have thought that, given the self-interest of the Conservative Party in those proposed boundary changes, seven months of reflection on what might happen might have led to the Conservatives reappraising their position on House of Lords reform, but it was not to be and we had a good debate about it.
The committee felt strongly that collective responsibility has served our constitution well and therefore emphasised that breaches of it should be rare and only ever a last resort. Moreover, it went on to recommend that a proper process should be put in place to govern any setting aside of the responsibility, stating:
“Such setting aside should be agreed by the Cabinet as a whole and be in respect of a specific issue”.
While I entirely agree with the recommendations of the committee as set out in paragraphs 77 to 79 where there is single-party government—particularly as collective responsibility was breached in recent memory in quite significant terms by the Labour Government—I do not think that we have been entirely realistic in these recommendations where they apply to coalitions. For example, the duty of the Cabinet as a whole to resolve differences is somewhat difficult when five members of the Cabinet are from one party and nearly 20 are drawn from the other. It is self-evident that the majority can always outvote the minority. My preference would be for the pragmatism of David Laws MP, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred, who felt that when agreements are made and subsequently diverted from there are naturally consequences for other agreements.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has contested this version of history, so let me put to him that in my view the more fundamental breakdown of collective responsibility was witnessed in the House of Commons debate on the Queen’s Speech in 2013 when one side of the Government—the Conservatives—tabled an amendment on their own Government’s programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred to this in her speech. The PM went on to give those Conservative rebels a free vote, although it was evidently not an issue of conscience, and we had the spectacle of junior Ministers voting against their own Government without any consequences. Our report states:
“Dr Stephen Barber … said, that ‘the acquiescence by the Prime Minister to allow ministers to vote “against” provisions in the Queen’s Speech ... is constitutionally more serious’ than the division between coalition partners over the boundary review amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. This is because of the role of the Queen’s Speech as a vote of confidence in the Government … previously any minister who declined to support the government on the Queen’s Speech would have been expected to resign”.
In the instance of the Conservative rebellion on the Queen’s Speech, I took the opportunity to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, when on 9 April he came to have his annual evidence session with the committee, how that had transpired. If I recall correctly—I have not seen the transcript yet—the Deputy Prime Minister told the committee that the issue had not been raised in a Cabinet committee and was not even discussed in the quad. Therefore, in terms of a rebellion where the Prime Minister gave the Conservative rebels a free vote, the committee’s recommendation that these sorts of things must be discussed and a resolution must be sought within Cabinet clearly could not have applied, because the issue was not raised in Cabinet.
The last point that I will make about collective responsibility again relates to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for whom I have the profoundest respect, as he well knows from my interactions with him. The anecdote that he just told on how, but for his intervention, there were not meant to be any Liberal Democrat Ministers in the House of Lords was an example of a little breach of collective responsibility. If that sort of evidence were to come out, I would have expected it to be in the noble Lord’s memoirs, which we would be rushing off to Waterstones to buy. Saying it first in giving evidence to our committee and repeating it in the Chamber of the House stretches collective responsibility, because that discussion clearly took place in Cabinet. I fear that the noble Lord wishes to come back on that.
Lord Strathclyde
I shall say two things in my defence. First, I had not been appointed, so there was no collective responsibility issue. Secondly, and perhaps more important—this is something that I did not say but should have said—this was born out of a misunderstanding by the Deputy Prime Minister about how Ministers are appointed in the House of Lords. Given that the Liberal Democrats are so deeply federalised, he assumed that it was an issue that would be solved in the House of Lords, which is perhaps rather a different slant from the one that I gave in the first place.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I am sure that we all appreciate that clarification. Nevertheless, I am not sure that any of us will not use it to give Mr Clegg a hard ride next time, if there is a next time.
Let me conclude by coming to the role of the Civil Service. I will touch on this issue merely to say that both we and the Institute for Government, in its more extensive study, heard about the difficulties encountered by a junior partner in government, represented by a junior Minister, when commissioning policy advice. I wholeheartedly agree with the committee’s recommendation that Ministers should be able to commission confidential briefings from officials within their departments for the purpose of developing policy for the next Parliament without those briefings being disclosed to Ministers from their coalition partners. If this practice were not formalised, we would be in the invidious position whereby, although the Opposition would have access to Civil Service advice, as would the party that hosted the Secretary of State in the department, the Lib Dems, where they had only a junior Minister, would not have access to policy advice. That cannot be right. I look forward to the Government’s response on that matter and join the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in expressing disappointment that the Government have not been able to provide a response before the debate today. I can only assume that the Government have failed to come to a collective view on this.
To conclude, it was a fascinating inquiry. Our witnesses were extremely knowledgeable and, particularly the political ones, often passionately engaged with the issues. I hope that the Cabinet Office will take the opportunity to act on the recommendations of this report. In so doing, it will lend clarity in future scenarios, when the public may yet again choose coalition government. The report’s recommendations on collective responsibility stand for single-party government as well, so the report contributes overall to good and accountable government.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Constitution Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on this excellent report. If it is to be her swan-song as chairman of the committee, it is a fitting culmination of a series of reports by the committee, which have been very valuable and, in this case, raise issues that need to be considered before the next general election—which I think it is more probable than some previous speakers have thought may result in another coalition.
As the noble Baroness said, the present coalition has changed our constitutional conventions—I was glad to hear her say constitutional conventions, not constitution—in some significant and surprising ways. The first example, to which reference has not been made tonight, was, of course, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I opposed this in your Lordships’ House. If the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats chose to make an agreement about the timing of the next general election, that was their choice, but a number of us felt that they had no need or right to bind future Governments. Now we are seeing the problems caused by the fixed term. Having exhausted the measures in the coalition agreement, the Government are finding it difficult to agree on new policies—and they will find it increasingly difficult to do so as they seek to demonstrate their separateness in the year leading up to the general election.
As a result, we are already seeing that Parliament has very thin gruel to work on. We await the programme in the Queen’s Speech for the next Session with no lively expectation that it will be substantial. Meanwhile the Government are looking divided and weak, more concerned with washing their dirty linen in public than with running the country. If I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, we have heard a certain amount of that sort of recrimination already in the speeches tonight—and that is nothing compared with what we will get over the course of the next year. I think a case could be made that the country would have been better served by bringing this Parliament to an end now so that a new Government could be elected with a fresh mandate.
I want to concentrate the remainder of my remarks on preparations for the next Government and the role of the Civil Service in the lead-up to the general elections, to which reference has been made. When the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, and I gave evidence to the Constitution Committee in its preparation of this report, we emphasised two things. First, there should be a level playing field between all three main parties, with their being treated equally and having equal access to advice. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, referred to that. Secondly, we suggested that the scope of the confidential discussions between the main political parties and the Civil Service should be extended somewhat so that the Civil Service could give advice on the parties’ plans, particularly on the practicability of their implementation, and that the Civil Service should not just be in listening mode.
The Institute for Government has recently produced two very sensible reports on this subject, in which it makes similar points. It has drawn attention to the dilemma in which civil servants may find themselves when there are two main parties in government and one main party in opposition. The two parties in government will have diverging approaches to policy as the election draws near—and, as has been said, they may want to keep some of their ideas confidential from their partners in government. The Institute for Government rightly said that civil servants in this situation need clear guidance on how to deal with that problem. What should that guidance say?
During the period leading up to the general election, the Government must continue to govern and are entitled to full assistance from the Civil Service on any matter of government policy. So it seems to me that a clear distinction needs to be made between what the Government continue to do as government and what the political parties are preparing as parties. In other words, the Civil Service must continue to give full support to what is decided by the Government as matters of collective responsibility, and that requires making it quite clear what those matters are that have been decided by collective responsibility. But when the parties go their separate ways in preparing proposals for their manifestos, the Civil Service should act as it normally would in relation to political parties in pre-election mode. This should not mean that it can give no advice on party proposals; as I said, there would be advantage in their being given such advice, particularly on practicability. But all three political parties should be treated in this respect in the same way.
As far as the parties within the Government are concerned, this will put extra weight on distinguishing between what decisions are made by collective responsibility and what are not. Clear procedures need to be put in place to distinguish between the two. It has been reported that the Prime Minister has decided that confidential discussions between the Civil Service and the Opposition can start six months before polling day—namely, in the autumn. So there is plenty of time for this guidance to be put in place.
Before the last general election, as has been said, the Cabinet Office, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, performed a very useful service in publishing a draft chapter for the Cabinet Office manual on the rules of the game in the event of no party gaining an overall majority in the election. That publication in draft provided an opportunity for outside observers, including Select Committees, to comment on those rules of the game. This achieved a much greater understanding and acceptance of the conventions than there would otherwise have been, and that was very valuable in the uncertain days immediately following the general election.
I hope that the Cabinet Office will similarly publish draft guidance for consultation on the role of the Civil Service in the lead-up to the general election. If that is to be done, and the discussions are to start in October, that cannot be long delayed now. Perhaps the Minister in replying will be able to give the House some information on what the Government intend in that respect—information that would have been included, no doubt, in the Government’s formal response to the committee’s report but which now needs to be made public.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, my first task is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, for her admirable introduction and for the manner in which she has chaired the Constitution Committee during all the time that I have served on it. She has done so with great effectiveness, judicious fairness and sensitivity to the views of all members of the committee, whatever their political backgrounds. We are also fortunate to have been served by special advisers and policy analysts of outstanding quality and expertise and excellent clerks. I add my thanks to all of them.
I want to concentrate on collective ministerial responsibility and cabinet government, subjects on which we laid particular emphasis in our report. We did so partly because of the strength of the views expressed by our witnesses, academic and political. The Ministerial Code, Cabinet Manual and the coalition agreement all state that the principle of collective responsibility applies,
“save where it is explicitly set aside”.
The coalition Government’s programme for government specified five issues where the parties in the coalition might adopt different positions. They are set out in paragraph 68 of our report. The convention of collective responsibility is constitutionally important for two main reasons. First, the process of collective decision-making within government makes it more likely that better decisions are reached. The second is that it enables Parliament to hold the Government as a whole responsible for their policies, decisions and actions. Collective responsibility also imbues a Government and, indeed, Parliament, with authority. When the discipline it imposes is departed from, the authority is undermined.
We fully recognise, of course, that the parties in a coalition will not agree on everything and that from time to time they will differ. Any noble Lord who has attended this Parliament would find it very difficult to be blind to that fact. However, we say that,
“it is incumbent on ministers to seek to reach a collective view on issues wherever possible … Given its constitutional importance, the setting aside of the convention … should be rare, and only ever a last resort”.
We had hoped to discuss the issues with the Deputy Prime Minister before we concluded our deliberations but because of a family funeral that meeting could not take place. However, on 9 April, after the report had been published, the committee pursued the issue in the annual evidence session that we have with him. The Deputy Prime Minister said that one consequence of coalition government had been a,
“rejuvenation of collective decision-making and collective discussion within government, because you have to be open with each other if you are seeking to make decisions that bind two parties in a government”.
He spoke of,
“the rejuvenation of the Cabinet committee system”.
The committee did not seek to contest that view, although we had learnt in the evidence sessions that a great many potentially contentious matters are resolved in the so-called “quad”, a kind of inner Cabinet which seems to take a great many more decisions than the Cabinet itself. What we were concerned about was collective ministerial responsibility and the breaches of the convention as it had previously been understood.
In response to a question from my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton, the Deputy Prime Minister told us that it was important that when decisions are arrived at collectively they are defended collectively. My noble friend commented that that,
“seemed to imply that there is no collective responsibility unless specifically agreed. The agreement of 2010 says that there is collective responsibility unless it is specifically disagreed. You seem to think that those statements are compatible. It seems to me that they are not”.
Replying, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was,
“an almost academic suggestion that collective responsibility can apply to decisions that have not been taken collectively”.
When I took up the argument, the Deputy Prime Minister agreed that some issues had been anticipated but said:
“There is a second category of issues: issues that you cannot anticipate on which the government cannot come to a collective agreement”.
He cited the Leveson inquiry and the decision that he should speak and offer a different point of view alongside the Prime Minister. He told us that that decision was “formally agreed”. He reiterated:
“Collective responsibility is how decisions are discussed, decided upon and then defended when collectively agreed within government. Collective responsibility is not a doctrine that says that coalition parties cannot disagree with each other in public”.
We were then told that where the convention of collective responsibility had been set aside explicitly, the decision had been taken,
“formally … within Whitehall by the Cabinet Secretary, in consultation with me and the Prime Minister”.
I do not believe that I was alone in being surprised—perhaps I should say astonished—by that revelation. The decision to set aside the convention was apparently being taken not by the Cabinet but by the Cabinet Secretary after consultation with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. That, we were told, is what happened in the case of the Leveson inquiry. The Deputy Prime Minister said that these decisions,
“are vetted and overseen by the Cabinet Secretary”.
Surely, it is a remarkable new constitutional practice that decisions of this kind about an important constitutional convention appear to depend upon a decision of the Cabinet Secretary. The guidance given in the Scottish Ministerial Code shows that it is possible to handle these matters differently. It states that,
“all decisions reached by the Scottish Ministers, individually or collectively, are binding on all members of the Government. It follows from this that every effort must normally be made to ensure that every Minister with an interest in an issue has a chance to have his or her say—in an appropriate forum or manner—before a decision is taken”.
Exactly the same principle should apply in the rest of the UK.
What happens in practice? Does the Cabinet Secretary say to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, “Have you circulated papers to every Minister with an interest or had a meeting of the Cabinet to see if agreement can be reached?”. No, he certainly does not say that because he will know that nothing of the kind will happen. Or does he say, “Well, I have listened to this discussion and it is all too obvious that you can’t agree, and so I certify that there is no collective agreement”? I do not consider that this is a proper role for the Cabinet Secretary or an appropriate way of explicitly setting aside the principle of collective responsibility.
In any event, as we have heard, some of the most extraordinary breaches of collective responsibility have taken place without the supervision of the Cabinet Secretary or as a result of any formal proceedings. We have been told about the decision of the Liberal Democrat Party to vote in 2013 on an amendment to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill delaying the review of parliamentary constituency boundaries in breach of a policy contained in the coalition agreement. It was taken personally by the Deputy Prime Minister who was angered by the withdrawal of the House of Lords Reform Bill.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde, whose strong views have already been quoted, pointed out that the coalition agreement had been that the boundary review would take place in return for there being a referendum on the alternative vote. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who has also been quoted, said that the action,
“was wholly undermining of the process by which you should conduct yourself within government”.
He thought that departures from collective responsibility weakened the,
“authority of the Prime Minister and the Government”.
We also heard the strong criticisms made by Dr Stephen Barber about,
“the acquiescence by the Prime Minister to allow ministers to vote ‘against’ provisions in the Queen’s Speech”.
In paragraph 76, we give the reasons why so many of our witnesses believe that the abandonment of collective responsibility, other than in the most exceptional cases, is hugely damaging to good government. The unseemly row going on at present in and around the Department for Education is another example of behaviour damaging to good government. Is it really not possible to reach agreement on policy about the law concerning the carrying of knives without having a great public argument about it outside Cabinet committees? The committee strongly believes that,
“it is incumbent on ministers to seek to reach a collective view on issues wherever possible. Having reached a collective view, it is essential that they can be held to account for it … A proper process should be in place to govern any setting aside of collective responsibility. Such setting aside should be agreed by the Cabinet as a whole and be in respect of a specific issue”.
The process involving the Cabinet Secretary described to us by the Deputy Prime Minister after we had produced our report is not, in my view, a proper process. Whether the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments represent a collective decision taken by the Government, and for which they can be held accountable, is not known because, very regrettably, as we have heard and not for the first time, the House has been debating a report of a House of Lords committee to which the Government have failed to produce a response in the two months referred to in the Companion. I know that my noble friend who will respond to this debate will do his best to deal with the points that have been raised, but we should have been in the position where we could debate the Government’s response and not just our report. Perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has observed, there is no collective ministerial view about the conclusions reached by the committee.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has taken pleasure not only from the credit that has been given to her for her stewardship of the committee and the very valuable report, but from how interesting this debate has been. That is also a considerable tribute to her and her committee. The temptation is, however, to pick up some of the interesting range of issues and stray a long way from one’s intended text—and, I fear, bore the House.
However, I want to take up just one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who knows I have great respect for his views. I do not take the view that the fifth year of this Parliament will be a complete waste of time just because we do not have a whole lot of new laws being put before us. Ministers too often think that it is of great importance and virility to have some great Bill put before Parliament and that otherwise they think that they will not really exist in the public mind or among their colleagues. If we spend some time in this next year on post-legislative scrutiny and look at how successful or not some of the previous laws have been, that would be a valuable lesson for us and, in that respect, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act could well prove to be a real success.
I am delighted that my noble friends Lady Falkner and Lady Grender, are contributing to this debate—my noble friend Lady Falkner because of her contribution to the committee, and my noble friend Lady Grender, as I am sure colleagues in your Lordships’ House will discover, because she will bring to the debate an interesting view about the way in which some of these matters have been happening in the recesses of a coalition Government.
I confess to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the House that I approached the report with some trepidation, because I thought that it might be narrow and cautious, and even take a rather conservative view. I thought that we might be looking at just the way in which we somehow deviated over the past four years from the great conventions of the past. That has not been so. As someone who has always been keen on having a written constitution, there are moments when I have said over the past four years, “Thank God we haven’t got one” because we have been able to evolve to meet the requirements of the situation.
Here in the committee’s report is an interesting recognition of the political facts of life. As paragraph 2 of the report rightly points out:
“Trends in voting behaviour, with fewer votes for the two largest parties and an increasing number of MPs representing smaller parties, make it increasingly possible that hung parliaments will recur”.
Ironically, the other place, which ought to be much more responsive to changes in the views of our fellow citizens, seems to be still stubbornly bipolar by comparison. With that in mind, it seems right to consider the constitutional implications in light of the essential job that a balanced Parliament has to do on behalf of the nation—that is, to give life to what the electorate have instructed, albeit with what most people would regard as an inconclusive result. This is the first peacetime majority Government since 1931. That is to say it is a Government whose MP supporters were elected by more than 50% of those who voted. Those who are in favour of minority Governments should think carefully about the example of the summer of 1974, when a Government who had no majority did nothing useful whatever, ended up with an early general election and there was then an unstable Government thereafter.
Those who voted in 2010 for the governing parties would probably disagree on many issues were they were to meet around a focus group table or a table in a pub. After all, if they had all felt the same, they would have voted for just one party. They did not. We should therefore be relaxed about the fact that their representatives in Parliament and in government sometimes disagree, too, sometimes openly. That may be better than the sort of divisions that were clearly behind the scenes in the previous Administration, as we now know from so many autobiographies and diaries.
Collective responsibility in all Governments—particularly in this one—is like the security services: you only find out about their failures but never hear about their successes. Despite all the inevitable journalistic craving for “coalition splits”, this Government have succeeded in upholding collective responsibility much more often than they have failed, with agreements reached more often than differences have been aired. By far the majority of the coalition agreement has stood the test of tensions between the parties. Where collective responsibility has been absent is where collective agreement has been absent, too. One is necessarily dependent on the other, and where a party has not signed up to a particular policy in a coalition agreement, its leadership within the Government cannot always be bound to a position preferred by the other coalition partner.
A generally successful Government would surely aspire to the committee’s recommendation in paragraph 78 that setting aside collective responsibility should be rare. I agree very much with my noble friend Lady Falkner on the example picked out in paragraph 73—in contrast to my other noble friend Lord Strathclyde, who made a meal of the other example given in an earlier paragraph. How rare will always be determined in future balanced Parliaments both by Harold Macmillan’s famous phrase “Events, dear boy” and by the depth and breadth of the agreements reached between the parties to a future coalition.
For that reason, the committee’s recommendation at paragraph 26 that there should be a full 12-day interval between the general election and the meeting of a new Parliament is really important. The coalition worked with extraordinary speed in agreeing a programme and an Administration at a time of grave economic risk for the whole country. Future coalitions should not have to work in such circumstances. Five days to determine the programme for five years of government is not necessarily sufficient. Indeed, international experience suggests that even 12 days might be a push. However, the idea that our country would grind to a halt if a change of government took even 28 days seems excessive. The wheels of Whitehall would keep on turning. It would just be a little longer before big changes in policy could be effected and big announcements could be made.
Incidentally, I believe that the one really serious omission in the committee’s report is what seems to be a failure to take account of other mature democracies’ experience. It is surely excessively insular—perhaps even xenophobic—not to take some notice of the extensive coalition experience of our continental neighbours and partners. Some of them may, as we all know, take excessive time to knit together coalition agreements, but other aspects of their arrangements may well give us useful insights. As with collective responsibility, I do not believe that the British people would be that worried about delay in the same way as the British 24-hour news media seem to be. Any repeat of the ludicrously overblown warnings of imminent Armageddon from Conservative newspapers in May 2010, with dire foreboding of a hung Parliament and parliamentarians being hung from the lampposts, will hardly seem credible in the future.
I believe that the committee has put its finger on the right way for the House of Commons to endorse a Government, once in place. I do not agree with those who, even this evening, have suggested that an investiture vote for a Prime Minister would be to endorse the person. I do not believe that is appropriate, so I am glad to see that it is rejected by the committee. Why should a junior coalition partner endorse a person of another party to be Prime Minister per se before the negotiations on programme and team have taken place and been concluded?
To my mind, in any case, a really important constitutional principle is that the House of Commons, newly elected by the nation, should be investing its confidence in the new Government—both their programme and their personnel—at the end of the Queen’s Speech. The committee is absolutely right on that point. Otherwise, taking the Prime Minister out of that equation would imply a further and, I think, entirely improper drift towards presidential governance. What makes a coalition fit together is a programme on which the parties can agree, even if the people—the characters—involved later prove to be important glue sticking it together through the ups and downs of political fortune.
As has already been referred to, the Institute for Government has done excellent work in recent months in this Parliament, studying how the political structures in Whitehall have responded to the coalition. It has found that by and large our constitutional arrangements, following the political circumstances of the time, have proved up to the job. That is the essence of the system. I understand that this very day Peter Riddell has been giving evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee at the other end on behalf of the Institute for Government. I pay tribute to him and his team for the work they have done.
Even if we did benefit from a written constitution, as almost every other mature country does, the day-to-day decision-making of a Government comprising two or more parties could not be constrained to pretend that they are one party. It is wrong and it should not be so. The political fortunes of both partners depend on their distinction from each other, while the fortunes of the country depend on the partners working together. Two or more parties working together make for better government and for better politics too, but inevitably that is the politics of disagreeing where you have to— that is what it is all about—and seeking agreement as best you can. At least it is done transparently in contrast to many of the single-party Governments of the past.
This Government, and the past four years, have shown that it is possible to secure both that disagreement, which is inevitable in politics, and also that measure of agreement to produce good governance. Even the Westminster Parliament, with all its pomp and flummery, has responded because it has needed to. The committee of your Lordships’ House has performed an extremely valuable function in demonstrating how that has been undertaken. Its analysis and advice will guide us to good effect, whatever the parliamentary arithmetic in May 2015 and in future general elections. I suggest to your Lordships that many of the lessons will stand equally well for single-party government as for coalitions in the future. I particularly endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. I hope that the recommendations will be taken seriously not just by the present Government—and I hope that there will be collective responsibility in their response to this—but by the opposition party, because between now and May next year the lessons of this report will stand us in very good stead.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
First, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her committee on producing an important and timely report. I broadly support the conclusions and I very much hope that Ministers and—picking up on what was just said—the Opposition will implement the suggested changes. I should also note that I agree very strongly with my illustrious predecessor, my noble friend Lord Butler, on the points that he has made, with one exception: I am with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on the question of fixed-term Parliaments. I think they are a good thing.
I want to make one practical point. We have a very large number of Select Committees in this House and the other place. We have a period between now and the election. Would it not be great if all the Select Committees looked back on their reports and recommendations and produced a short note on what has been changed as a result and those things where nothing has happened? Not only might this tell us about the effectiveness of the committees but it might stimulate a bit of debate about whether the Government have responded in line with the recommendations or have decided not to take them up. In the run-up to manifestos being produced, it might generate some interesting material or policies. That is my first suggestion.
Tonight, I want to take the opportunity to look forward to the next election rather than backwards, and I will argue that the past is not necessarily a good guide to the future. We have already had a lot of discussion about different interpretations of the past and I look forward to them being elucidated further in the many memoirs to come—which will not include mine.
Many have commented on the committee’s suggestion that the principle of collective responsibility should be set aside only very rarely. I strongly endorse that principle, but I have to acknowledge that the coalition parties have agreed that they will fight the next election as separate parties. As the first parties came down the steps at Downing Street, I, for one, felt that we were at the high point of the coalition. I expected that, as we got to the point where the election was formally called, we would be at the low point and that there would be a curve in that direction. I got out at the top point. However, let us be clear that this was inevitable. To me, it was entirely predictable and that curve has gone entirely as I expected.
Ahead of the next general election, let us think about what the Civil Service will have to do. I believe in the Boy Scouts’ motto, “Be prepared”. It is very important that the Civil Service prepares itself for all possible outcomes. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, ask whether we will have another coalition, although he believes it is unlikely. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, the pollsters are very clear that the long-term decline in the share of the vote going to the two main parties is apparent in the data. It is a really interesting question and it is rather difficult to predict what is going to happen next time. I intend to spend a little time, in a very nerdy way, modelling that process but it will be very tricky. However, I think that the Civil Service will need to work not on the basis of those predictions but on the basis that it should prepare for all possible outcomes. I would certainly include more work on minority Governments than was done on previous occasions and—something that people have not picked up on—I would certainly think about contingency work, looking at scenarios following all possible results in the Scottish referendum. People may decide that they want to do this contingency work once they know the result of that referendum, but one thing that will help the Civil Service is having a complete Cabinet Manual and not just a draft of one of its chapters.
One thing that I will try to keep to in my comments, which not many other people have done, is that in the Civil Service preparations ahead of last time we decided we would use the term “unclear result”. People have referred to “inconclusive results” but the terms “hung” and “balanced” are rather unbalanced and therefore “unclear result” is the best way of thinking about it.
Picking up on what both the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord McConnell, have said, there were a number of myths about coalition. One of them was that you had the lowest common denominators and that they would not do very much. We have had ample evidence now that that is not true. Whether or not you think they have done the right things, they have made large changes.
On the points that were made about the kind of Government that we have got, on comparing coalition with single-party government it is certainly my experience that the Cabinet committees have done a great deal more of the heavy lifting during coalition than has been the case during single-party government by both parties. While people talk about the quad doing a lot, believe me, smaller groups of Ministers before did quite a lot. The quad is relatively formal compared to some of those other occasions.
On the point about the length of time it might take before finalising a Government if there were to be an unclear result next time, this is important because a number of people have made the point about the media clamouring “to get on with it” and castigating the Prime Minister for staying. The excellent report makes clear that it is the Prime Minister’s duty to stay around until it is clear who will succeed him or her. It is important that we talk about the length of time.
This time it will be different. Let me give you five quick reasons why. First, the macroeconomic background will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, rather more favourable. I predict with a pretty high degree of confidence that the UK deficit will be much lower, growth will be higher and, with slightly less confidence, there will be no euro crisis going on. Secondly, the markets will have observed that coalition government is feasible in the United Kingdom—there were some rather silly remarks made last time—and that will make them more patient. Thirdly, it is likely that the two main parties might need to engage in more consultation with their MPs than they did last time. Fourthly, all parties in the negotiations might have made more commitments in advance, thereby restricting their room for manoeuvre. That will raise all kinds of complications. Finally, there may be all kinds of questions about the parameters of any negotiations with Scotland if there is a yes vote in the referendum.
For all those reasons, it will be important to allow the negotiators time to reach a durable agreement and for markets and the public to realise that such negotiations, judged by experience in continental Europe—I again think of what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said—will in general take much longer than five days. Indeed, it was a future Lib Dem Minister in the negotiations last time who pointed out to me that the average in Europe at that point, in 2010, was around 44 days. If we took the recent Belgian and German experiences into account, we might come up with a higher number.
None of what I have said should be seen as implying anything about the likelihood of an unclear result. It follows from the simple principle that civil servants need to be prepared for whatever emerges.
My overwhelming memory of the discussions in 2010—I hope I am not breaking any conventions here—is that all the key politicians behaved not only effectively but well and honourably. There were very few leaks during the talks and very little grandstanding to the media. I hope that that will be repeated. Many of the key civil servants are still in post and I know that they learnt a lot from their experience in 2010. I have no doubt that the Civil Service will do even better next time.
What can we, as parliamentarians, do to help? First, we have a duty to encourage increased participation in elections. The Hansard Society’s excellent audit of political engagement, of which we have all just received copies, makes particularly worrying reading. Eighteen months ahead of the general elections in 2005 and 2010, it found that the majority of respondents said that they were certain to vote. Now, for the same period, it is a minority. It concludes that,
“turnout may struggle to match 2010 levels next year”.
That is the society’s conclusion, not mine. It goes on to say that less than a quarter of the public believe that,
“Parliament encourages public involvement in politics”.
We need to consider how we can do something about that.
Television debates certainly encouraged and stimulated public interest last time. It is important that these debates are seen as having democratic legitimacy. I fear for this because, at the moment, negotiations are being conducted solely between a few parties and the broadcasters. That is not necessarily right.
I thank the committee. I threw a bit of a curve ball at it—as a witness you are supposed to answer questions, not pose them—when I said that I was worried about the question of access to papers, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. It has come up with a sensible suggestion. The absence of an answer in advance creates all kinds of problems and I hope that we can get a cross-party consensus around operating in that way.
Once again, I congratulate the Select Committee on an excellent report. It is very sad that there has not yet been a government response. I would love to be able to say that this would never have happened in my day but I fear that the evidence may not be entirely with me. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that a future committee, with as much wisdom and experience as this one has shown, will be able to tackle some of the issues I have raised today and come forth with another report which we can debate in this House.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, no one, I think, will seek to deny the importance of this report. I was very glad to be able to contribute in a small measure to the work on which it is based as a member of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have been granted a place on this committee two years ago.
Reference has already been made more than once to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth—always in my view the surest guide on constitutional matters—who on this occasion is being kept, like the best wine, until last. He pointed out in the committee’s first evidence session that,
“this is the first time that we have had a coalition that has been the product of the arithmetic of the general election … we have not been in that circumstance before; we have had coalitions, but where one party has been dominant and could have governed on its own”.
Our past coalitions, dominated by one party, operated reasonably contentedly according to procedures fashioned under single-party government that the smaller party or parties within them were in no position to alter in any marked degree. Now a new pattern has been set. I am less sanguine than my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that it will not be repeated. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Brockwell and Lord O’Donnell, that the likelihood is considerable. In any future coalitions, as in this one, a single party is unlikely to be in a dominant position. The electoral arithmetic will be decisive. It is as a result of the election of hung Parliaments—which, in the past, never ushered in a coalition Government at Westminster—that such Governments will almost certainly come into existence in future in peacetime.
The report is therefore significant and timely because it addresses the implications of this major change in our constitutional landscape. It puts forward clear answers to the chief questions that have been cast into such sharp relief by the experience of this first coalition Government of the new type. Like my colleague and noble friend Lady Falkner, I would like to touch on a few of them, returning for the most part—I hope I will be forgiven—to matters that have already been the subject of comment in this debate.
The report gives short shrift to ideas that have recently gained currency in some academic circles that would encumber the process of coalition-making with unnecessary votes of approval in the other place. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I do not think that we should add new requirements when long-established procedures work just as well for coalition Governments as for single-party ones. Any Government’s first Queen’s Speech provides a time-honoured test of whether they command the confidence of the Commons—and that is enough. I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Tyler endorse that. Similarly, the committee concluded that no special arrangements are needed to provide sufficient time for coalitions to be assembled. Some 12 days are currently available, as the report points out. If a fortnight is sufficient to concentrate the mind of a condemned man, politicians—conscious, one hopes, of their duty to the nation and their sovereign—ought to be able to manage with two fewer days.
In its deliberations that led to this report, the committee devoted more time to the issue of cabinet collective responsibility than to any other. This has come up several times already in the debate. It aroused more concern than any other central constitutional question because of the cavalier manner in which it has been treated all too frequently in this first coalition Government of the new type.
There is the opposite danger that collective responsibility might come to be invested with an aura of sanctity. Undue veneration would be contrary to our traditions. Collective responsibility is a doctrine that has been set aside in the past, as the report notes, giving three 20th century examples. There are others. Even Mr Gladstone, the most unbending of constitutionalists, was capable of taking a highly pragmatic and flexible view. When one of his Cabinet colleagues voted against what became known as the Third Reform Act 1884, he reminded the offender of the elementary rule that Cabinet members should vote together, but added that,
“it would be most unfortunate were the minds of men at such a juncture to be disturbed by the resignation of a Cabinet Minister”.
As so often in constitutional affairs, it is surely all a matter of balance and degree. Frequent breaches of collective responsibility must be expected, as we have heard, to damage the reputation and diminish the authority of a Government, particularly if they come unexpectedly, out of the blue, and without being preceded by any collective Cabinet decision to set the doctrine aside. That danger has been amply illustrated in the past four years. It could be significantly reduced by following the recommendations in this report. The key passage has been quoted before, but it bears repetition:
“Where it is clear that no collective position can be reached on an issue, a proper process should be in place to govern any setting aside of collective responsibility. Such setting aside should be agreed by the Cabinet as a whole and be in respect of a specific issue”.
The report goes on to urge that such a process should be introduced now and operate for the rest of this Parliament. Recent events have perhaps added to the significance of that particular portion of the report, and perhaps at the end of the debate the Minister will tell us whether we can now look forward to an announcement that the necessary arrangements will be established. In my view, it is the most important contribution that this first new-style coalition could make to assist the provision of good government by coalitions that may follow in the future.
The report has attracted favourable attention not only in this House but outside it. George Jones, emeritus professor of government at the London School of Economics, has described it as “an historic document”. However, it has not yet, as we have heard, attracted comment from the Government, who have had it in their hands for three months. Their formal written response ought to have been delivered in April—but sadly, as we have heard from previous speakers in the debate, delay is far from unusual. I cannot recall a single government response to the report of a Constitution Committee inquiry that has been delivered within the prescribed period in the time that I have been on the committee. Last week, my noble friend the Leader of the House accepted that we need,
“prompt and accurate replies to … Questions for Written Answer”.—[Official Report, 8/5/14; col. 1574.]
I trust that he takes the same view for Select Committee reports.
No one connected with the Constitution Committee can fail to be struck by the consistently high quality of the service members receive from the committee’s staff and legal advisers. Sensible committees do not draft. The preparation of this report proceeded in the usual faultless manner under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to her at the end of her distinguished chairmanship.
Baroness Grender
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the committee on this report and the noble Baroness on leading this debate. It is a privilege to be speaking in a debate led by her.
There have been many predictions about the survival of this coalition Government. One of my personal favourites is from Peter Oborne, writing in March 2012, who said it would be finished by 2013. Last time a debate was held here, there were predictions that this place had a natural government majority and would become a rubber-stamping Chamber. I think if you spoke to any of the Whips today, they would strongly dispute that. Even at the start of this coalition, the civil servants game-planning the talks, as we have since learnt from the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, found that they could not reach agreement in their mock talks when they were preparing for the real ones—a prediction of failure before they even began.
For my own part, I was one of those rare creatures, a Liberal Democrat special adviser based in Downing Street, so I had a ring-side seat. You could even describe it as experiencing some white-knuckle rides that could be defined only as constitutional rollercoaster moments: the somewhat unexpected use of the veto by the PM at the EU summit in December 2011; the failure to reform the House of Lords in 2012; and the subsequent delay on boundary reforms that summer. All are examples of moments that shook the coalition. I must admit that, once or twice, I wondered how long it would take to clear my desk as the speculation mounted that the coalition would buckle under the strain.
However, in the end, because of the coalition, there have always been processes in place which ensured that the business of delivering government policies and plans prevails over disagreements between two political parties that are so different. It is the combination of both formality and transparency which has made this coalition work: from the Cabinet Secretary’s role to the daily meetings; from the return to cabinet government and the proper use of Cabinet sub-committees to the existence of the quad to resolve issues and plan major initiatives; and the back-stop of the coalition committee, which has met only twice. Of course, there have been disagreements, and on some issues they have been profound but, most of the time, the schedules and a business-like attitude have prevailed. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for setting up some of the processes which have served the coalition so well.
I recall one of the first meetings I attended was such a robust exchange that I was quite surprised by it. However, I soon learnt that conversations at the heart of government should be robust, just as they should be in any senior management operation of any organisation. Certainly, the stories in the press over the past few days suggest that “robust” has been taken to a whole new level, but I would speculate that by the time we get to the next general election many of the disagreements—genuine policy disagreements—will have been more transparent as a result of coalition. I hope that ways are found to ensure this level of transparency about all future Governments and not just coalitions. For instance, anyone can now go on the Government’s website and see the coalition agreement and what progress has been made in each area in that agreement. That is not something that was provided under previous Administrations.
There is, of course, an ongoing narrative that this form of government is a disgrace and that rows dominate. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that majority governments can and do row, factionalise and fall out, and this is not a symptom of coalition. It is about people and getting things done. After all, coalition has been a regular post-war feature in both Germany and Italy, but with varying results. I personally will never forget the astonishment I experienced when a Liberal Democrat MP described to me how a Labour Cabinet Minister had invited him in and given him a list of questions to use to probe another member of the Labour Cabinet. A mere glimpse inside the unpleasant world created by Damian McBride would show rows that dragged everyone down in a majority Government, including decent civil servants caught in the crossfire. Falling out is a fact of life in government. Keeping it to policy and away from personality and having processes that are used to ensure that should always be the goal. If anything, the processes and formality that have been necessary to serve two parties in government can only be an improvement.
I would like to touch on the role of the Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries, because I believe that they are more and more crucial to resolving these issues. Under this coalition, the Cabinet Secretaries have provided a necessary and important link between the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Number 10 and the Cabinet Office. However, as the Institute for Government points out in its latest report about the final year of coalition, some in Whitehall prefer the ambiguity. It goes on to say:
“Many in Westminster and Whitehall still behave as if the Coalition does not exist, or as if its existence requires only informal and temporary adjustments”.
I am sure that other noble Lords have heard stories from their friends in the Civil Service of arriving at a meeting to discover that no Liberal Democrats are at the table, and wondering what on earth to do about it. This is where I believe that the role of the Permanent Secretary in each department is vital. Permanent Secretaries should have sufficient objectivity and seniority to ensure that their departments are run with an understanding of two political parties in power. Their role as an honest broker is something the IFG has recommended. I would love to see some follow-up on this.
Like the Cabinet Secretary, Permanent Secretaries have a duty to deliver government policy and to help to plan and prepare for the next Government. The committee’s conclusions on the need for confidential briefings in the run-up to an election provide a sensible guide, and I really welcome that. I also welcome the useful examples from both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, shared impressively with us by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. The success that he and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness achieved at “conscious uncoupling” is an example to us all. The bromance is still there: we can see it in their eyes.
I would like to touch on one more specific area of constitutional change examined by the committee—that of the fixed-term Parliament. While it has been delivered by this coalition Government and it has provided a level of stability which was essential for economic recovery, I urge noble Lords to see this as a change which will enhance Government, whether it be majority, minority or coalition. Indeed, only this week the CBI expressed its concerns about political instability and the likely effect on business. A five-year fixed term provides all Governments with an opportunity to look before leaping. I cannot agree more with the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, that there is sometimes an obsession with driving through new pieces of legislation. I recall the opportunity that came up—if you can call it that—when Lords reform fell and there was time on the parliamentary agenda. That was an opportunity to use it in a much more creative and imaginative way than introducing more legislation.
As the recent Crewe and King book, The Blunders of our Governments, demonstrates, time and time again the speed and pace of policy change, without testing in advance, results in failure. I suggest that the well worn phrase, “hit the ground running” for a new government should drive fear into the heart of every elector. I remember watching Lord Callaghan—the father of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—on a results programme at the start of the Government in 1997. When asked what they should do, he replied, “They should probably sit down and have a cup of tea”. At the time I thought—I assume so did the Blair Government—that he was completely wrong. I am now beginning to understand what he meant. A fixed term of five years no longer means you need to front-load every policy change into the first Parliament. A fixed-term Parliament provides the thinking and testing time to trial things and test out and research policy before it is introduced. It does not need that race at the beginning that we are all so used to culturally because we are used to having a scenario without fixed-term Parliaments.
Over the next year, there will be a need for greater clarity, particularly for civil servants. Again, the Institute for Government provides useful advice about the need to reach agreement at the top about the rules and that those rules should be published. I conclude with a useful lesson in fighting elections and working together: the example of the Eastleigh by-election. The battle was fierce, but at the same time the parties worked together in government with economic recovery as a core purpose. That is not only possible in a theoretical sense; this coalition, on all sides, has shown it can be delivered in a practical sense.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that this important and timely report is being debated this evening. Like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the Constitution Committee on a valuable and prudent analysis of the constitutional implications of coalition Government. I was especially impressed by the committee’s analysis of the convention of collective responsibility. Its explanation of and justification for the convention are superb. I support strongly its recommendations in paragraphs 138 to 141. Indeed, there are no recommendations that I do not support, although—as I shall argue—there are some that I would wish to develop.
The report is measured and realistic. Its starting point is that there may again be coalition Governments following elections in which no one party wins an absolute majority of seats but it accepts that that is a case of if rather than when. The conditions of 2010 were exceptional in terms of the confluence of electoral arithmetic and economic crisis. In other circumstances, the outcome of a hung Parliament may be minority Government rather than a coalition. If there is an indecisive outcome and if negotiations take place for the formation of a coalition Government, it would be desirable to have in place some agreed framework for those negotiations. The report offers eminently reasonable recommendations for that framework.
The recommendations are essentially modest in that they cannot solve two basic problems associated with such negotiations, but they go some way to addressing one of them. The basic problem is that of a democratic deficit. Coalitions formed as the result of post-election bargaining lack the seal of electoral approval. Some argue that if party A gets 35% of the vote and party B gets 20%, then a coalition of the two parties enjoys the support of 55% of the electorate. It does not. It enjoys the definitive support of not one elector because nobody was given the opportunity to vote for A plus B. Its legitimacy comes from the support of the parties in Parliament. Its popular legitimacy is, in essence, indirect rather than direct.
The second problem is that of incomplete information. Whatever one thinks of party manifestos, each party has time to prepare its policy proposals to put before the electorate. There may be a lengthy process of internal discussion and, indeed, of external consultation, drawing in specialists to advise. There may even be an opportunity to anticipate one’s stance in the event of an indecisive election result, but one cannot utilise the same process of consultation and discussion. In coalition forming, as we have already heard, there is pressure to reach agreement quickly—at least, there is in the United Kingdom.
We are used to a quick and almost seamless transition from one Government to another, usually on the day following the general election. As has been mentioned, by our standards, the five days of negotiations in 2010 were a long time. The pressure on negotiators was to reach agreement quickly and in conditions of competition. The discussions took place in secrecy. Deals were agreed in a virtually sealed environment. There was no opportunity to consult on what was being agreed, in terms of not just political acceptability but feasibility. I am concerned here not with the partisan aspects but with the evidence base. Those involved with the negotiations may be very bright, but they may not be specialists in all the subjects under discussion.
Let me illustrate that with a couple of commitments embodied in the coalition agreement. The Conservatives conceded the case for a fixed-term Parliament. The coalition agreement stated:
“We will put a binding motion before the House of Commons stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015”.
No binding Motion was ever brought before the House of Commons, for one very good reason: there was no one to be bound by such a binding Motion. The prerogative cannot be bound by what is a declaratory Motion.
The agreement also said that the legislation would provide for an early dissolution if 55% or more of MPs voted for it. Did this figure derive from a study of practice in other legislatures? If one looks at the provisions of other legislatures, the answer is clearly no. It was the product of a quick calculation based on party strengths in the new Parliament. It was only later that a change was made to make the figure two-thirds of MPs, a figure employed by several other legislatures.
I take those as illustrative of the problem of incomplete information. The pressure to reach agreement quickly in conditions of secrecy may result in commitments that are difficult to undo. There is added pressure on Parliament, not least your Lordships’ House, but if the coalition partners mobilise a majority in the other place, we are limited in challenging the ends of the policy even if we have the scope to affect the means. It would be far better if the policies agreed were the product of considered and informed reflection. I therefore welcome the recommendation of the Constitution Committee at paragraph 22 that five days should not be taken as a complete period for forming a government. It recommends that no more or less time should be taken than is required to produce a government able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. I would be inclined to say there should be no more or less time than is required to generate informed policy commitments and to command the confidence of the House of Commons.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
Does my noble friend agree that to seek to lay down a programme for government for five years in five days is in itself unachievable, that events will change things, and that it is therefore better to enunciate the principles, vision or goals rather than the precise methods of achieving them?
Lord Norton of Louth
I am not suggesting that it has to be detailed; I am referring to the feasibility and to quickly checking that what is being suggested at a high level of policy is at least grounded in what is feasible and correct.
There is one other problem to which I wish to draw attention. It complements the recommendations embodied in the report. The formation of a coalition may exacerbate a problem of experience in government. There are benefits in Ministers having some grounding in government by either experience or training. In recent decades, we have had people appointed to senior ministerial office with no prior experience of government. That is a consequence of a party being in opposition for a relatively long time. The problem is compounded by the formation of a coalition where it draws in a party which has not had expectation of being in office and has no Members with ministerial experience.
I have pursued for some time the need for ministerial training and, indeed, for training of senior civil servants when it comes to understanding our constitutional arrangements. If there is a significant churn in senior civil servants and Ministers are taking office with no prior experience or knowledge of the subject, we have serious problems.
We have generalist Ministers and generalist civil servants having responsibility for what may be important, and at times complex, areas of policy but with no grounding in the subject at all. A particular example is training. At the end of 2012 I tabled a Question asking how many Ministers in the Cabinet Office and the office of Lord President of the Council had received training from the National School of Government or Civil Service Learning in constitutional principles and practice. My noble friend Lady Northover provided a concise answer: “None”.
We need to think seriously about how we ensure that Ministers new to office get a grasp of how to undertake their responsibilities, as well as gain some knowledge of the area of their responsibility. Relying on officials may not be sufficient, especially if the officials are as new as the Minister. There may be a case for those on the Opposition Front Bench not only to have contact with officials, but also to be provided with sessions with specialists, not just in the subject area of their portfolios, but also in the running of government.
In the event of a coalition there may be a case for some briefing sessions to be incorporated into the period between reaching agreement and the meeting of the new Parliament. I strongly support the recommendations of the Constitution Committee at paragraph 40 for administrative support and factual briefings for those engaged in negotiations, but I think there is a case for further advice and training once a new Government are formed. For that reason I also support the recommendation at paragraph 26 for a 12-day gap between an election and the meeting of a new Parliament to be the preferred choice, while recognising that even longer may be required.
I raise the issue as an important one for the quality of government. It goes beyond the issue of coalition formation, but forming coalitions may, as I say, exacerbate the problem, especially if it involves third parties which have had no expectation of office.
I again congratulate the Constitution Committee on another excellent report. Its message is that we may not have a coalition government in the event of an indecisive election result, but if we do, we need to have the mechanisms in place to facilitate it. It is an eminently sensible report. I trust that the Government will embrace its recommendations. I say to my noble friend Lord Lexden that I am not sure whether or not that is fine wine, but then I am teetotal.
Lord Donoughue (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House for allowing me to speak briefly in the gap. This is an excellent and timely report, beautifully introduced by my noble friend Lady Jay.
With the decline in support for the two main parties, hung Parliaments—despite the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that they should be rare—sadly may be more frequent in the United Kingdom. As the report says, I was the only witness to firmly oppose coalition as the best resolution to hung Parliaments. I will explain by saying that what I fear is that public and politicians may now assume that coalition is the natural, the automatic and perhaps the only response to hung Parliaments. The House should have on record that this is not the case.
Recent history, as I experienced in Downing Street in the 1970s, shows at least two alternative practical responses to a hung Parliament. One is minority government by the largest party. This can and did work reasonably well in terms of progressing and processing government. It may not have been wholly successful, but that was a political matter. A second alternative is a loose pact between a major and a minor party, as in 1977-78 between Labour and the old Liberal Party—sometimes called “supply and confidence”—whereby the minor party gave broad support to the Government while it was consulted sympathetically on all coming legislation. It had the advantage of being without all the formalities of coalition, especially in not having members of the minority party in the Cabinet—something which Conservatives opposite must now, I imagine, look back on with envy. It worked well and lasted almost five years, while opinion polls showed public support for this loose arrangement.
These alternatives are not perfect. They leave uncertainty about the Government’s long-term survival, whereas a coalition offers more assurance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, pointed out very well. However, they have the advantages of maintaining the coherent values of a single-party Government, recently exposed to the nation and voted on in a general election campaign. They do not have the clear disadvantages of a formal coalition, which we have witnessed with sadness and compassion over the past four years, such as those listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. They include: the confusion over the operation of collective responsibility; the muddles over what the Government’s policies actually are; the mediocrity of having some people in government only because they are part of a minority quota; and the public bickering, as there was recently over free schools.
Fundamentally, I suppose that my reservations are primarily about one single party—in practice, the Liberal Democrats, who have insufficient public support but massive overrepresentation in this House—being perhaps permanently in government. I hope that the next majority party and the civil servants advising it immediately after a future election will follow the wise advice of this report. I hope that they will consider the two alternatives of minority government and a loose pact with an open mind, and will not assume that a coalition is always the best and only option. That will not always be the case.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I start by congratulating the Constitution Committee on the production of this excellent report and, in particular, by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington. She has been an excellent chair of the committee and will be an extremely hard act to follow. This is one of a number of roles that my noble friend has undertaken as a member of your Lordships’ House with the usual calm, efficient and knowledgeable approach that she brings to all the tasks she undertakes. I know that she is highly respected and admired by Members on all Benches. I first got to know and work with my noble friend Lady Jay many years before I joined your Lordships’ House and it is a privilege to call her my noble friend.
As I said in my opening remarks, this is an excellent report and a very timely one. The first coalition in more than 70 years and the first peacetime coalition in 79 years was formed in 2010 between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. I have always been of the opinion that the coalition would serve out its full term. I never treated with any seriousness the reports that it was about to implode, collapse or disappear, so essentially I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.
While it may be wrong to say that it was uncharted territory, it was certainly territory that had not been navigated for a very long time. All the players involved in earlier discussions had left the pitch. I have some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats and the position that they found themselves in. They have certainly paid a heavy price at the ballot box in the local elections following the general election of 2010, as voters have shown their displeasure at some of the policies they have pursued with their coalition partners. If we look abroad, it often is the junior partner in a coalition that pays a heavier price in subsequent elections. None of us has crystal balls or can see into the future but, as the report points out, the growth in votes and seats for parties that are neither Labour nor Conservative has increased from 10 seats and 10% of the vote in the 1950s to 86 seats and a third of the vote in 2010. The trend is clear; if it continues further coalitions are possible and perhaps even very likely. Our constitution and the way that government and Parliament react and adapt to change is a matter that needs to be kept under review. This report is an important part of that review. It has been interesting to hear from noble Lords who were involved to differing degrees in the discussions to form the coalition and, in the case of my noble friend Lord McConnell, on the formation of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament.
I will now address specific parts of the report. My opinion is that there should be no fixed time for agreement to be reached between coalition partners but discussion should be concluded as soon as possible. A rushed agreement that struggles will not produce good government and will set up the Administration to fail from the outset as the realities of government come into play. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, made important points in respect of that as did the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
On fixed-term Parliaments, I agree with the evidence given by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton when he suggested that five year fixed-term Parliaments were too long and that four years was more in tune with the natural rhythm of our electoral cycles. I agree also with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. The contribution on the last year of Parliaments by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was very interesting, as there is concern across the House that all the extra time off we have had recently affects the ability of the House to hold the Government properly to account. The Government need to respond to that point.
When I look back to the time of the formation of the coalition, I recall the press being camped outside Parliament on College Green and outside party headquarters—certainly outside the Conservative and Liberal Democrat headquarters. At that time I was working at the Labour Party headquarters and it was a bit quieter there. It was new for everyone in 2010. If the general election next year results in a hung Parliament I hope that more informed briefings are provided so that the media can report more accurately on what actually is going on rather than endlessly speculating on what might be going on. I accept fully that that is much easier to say than to deliver and that the media like speculation, but it is important to keep citizens informed as far as possible with accurate information and to give them reassurance that things are under control and procedures remain in place to ensure stability.
I very much agreed with the report when it looked at the duty of an incumbent Prime Minister to remain in office until a successor who can command a majority in the House of Commons is identified. That could be described as the final duty of an incumbent Prime Minister: ensuring stability, enabling discussions to take place and facilitating the transfer of power in an orderly fashion, as you would expect in a mature democracy. I very much agreed with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, in that respect.
The use of the Civil Service is also considered by the report. The previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announced before the general election that in the event of a hung Parliament the Civil Service would be available to support negotiations between the parties. It may be that if coalitions become the norm in the United Kingdom their role in supporting the negotiations will increase over time. That could be very helpful in bringing greater clarity and resolution of issues in a more timely fashion. Perhaps that will occur over time and will be much more like the process described by my noble friend Lord McConnell.
I could not see a situation where an incumbent Prime Minister in the future would not follow what Gordon Brown did in making the announcement about the involvement of the Civil Service. However, for greater clarity, it may be wise for the Government to make an announcement many months in advance of the election about what will happen after a general election under various scenarios, as the report suggested and as my noble friend Lady Jay outlined. The autumn period, after the conference season, seems the ideal time for the Government to make such an announcement. That would be before any real campaigning gets under way and would provide everyone with the clarity they need.
I did not like at all the suggestion of having a prime ministerial investiture vote and am pleased that the committee did not adopt this proposal. That seems at odds with our parliamentary system of government. It may be said that things have become more presidential, with so much focus on our party leaders, but for me this is a step too far. Parliament has mechanisms that enable it to express the confidence or otherwise in the whole Government led by the Prime Minister of the day, starting with the vote on the Queen’s Speech. It is clear, effective and well understood. For that reason I am in agreement with the committee’s opinion that it is not desirable to have a separate vote on any coalition agreements between the parties.
One of the most interesting parts of the report is chapter 4, which looks at the operation of government and Parliament under coalition. The principle of collective ministerial responsibility has served us well in the UK, where decisions are reached collectively and, when made, are binding on all Ministers. The principle largely stands but it may be that, with the evolution of coalition Government, more emphasis on the agreements to differ needs to be allowed to avoid disputes between Ministers and parties in the same Administration. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Lexden, referred to that very matter.
The breakdown during this Parliament between the coalition partners over House of Lords reform, the ability of the Government to secure a majority for the programme motion in the House of Commons and the subsequent blocking of the boundary reviews highlighted a serious deficiency between the coalition partners that had either not been seen or not worked out sufficiently in advance. As we have seen, this issue came to the surface again today in contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner.
I again find myself in agreement with the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton in this part of the report. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important, as the report highlights, to have proper processes in place to govern any setting aside of collective responsibility on individual matters to ensure that collective responsibility remains in place for the vast majority of the Government’s programme.
The creation of what has been called “the quad” is an interesting development. It certainly puts the Liberal Democrats, the junior coalition partner, at the heart of the decision-making process and makes clear that this body deals with and agrees the way forward on the thorniest issues that confront the Government. In fact, as many noble Lords have said, David Laws MP referred to this as “the inner Cabinet”. I am sure that more will be written about the workings of the quad in future. From my observation from outside, it is a very powerful part of the Government that has played its role in keeping the two coalition partners together on a very solid basis, with only one or two exceptions that I have referred to before.
In looking at the end of the Parliament, the committee has made important recommendations as to how contact and discussions with civil servants should take place. They are a development of the present practice and maintain the important principle that parties should have discussions with the Civil Service for the purposes of developing policy and understanding policy issues and that these discussions should be confidential. It is also important that, while few important decisions are taken during the purdah period, the business of government goes on and conventions are respected to ensure that this happens.
The most worrying thing I heard today was from my noble friend Lord McConnell about what is happening in Scotland with regard to the papers of the previous Administration. That is a very unfortunate development and one that I hope can be resisted in future.
In conclusion, I again thank the Constitution Committee and my noble friend Lady Jay for an excellent report and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this has been a serious and worthwhile debate. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, both for this report and for her chairmanship of the committee. I have had the nervous privilege of appearing before it on one or two occasions, and I have always been asked extremely sharp questions.
I must apologise to the House that the noble Baroness has not yet received a governmental response. We had hoped that it would be ready before this debate. I will take back to the Cabinet Office the strong views expressed in this debate, and I will do my utmost to ensure that we have it available for the next chance that the House will have to debate constitutional issues, which I think will be the last day of the Queen’s Speech debate. I may not be able to deliver on that—I am conscious that in government at present the number of people who have to agree something of this significance is rather larger than it would be in a single-party Government; that is of course part of the problem of coalition government—but I will do my best.
Since the committee published its report in February, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the other place and the Institute for Government have both published reports on the final year of a fixed-term Parliament, which I have also read, as no doubt have many others who have contributed to this debate. The reports also provide some very useful information—in the Institute for Government’s case, resting on extensive interviews with civil servants—about what we may need to think about over the next 12 months, and indeed over the next few months, in order to prepare for the final months of this fixed-term Parliament.
There have been some elements of knockabout politics in this debate and certainly some elements of nostalgia for a firm two-party system; I also felt that there was such nostalgia in a great deal of evidence given to the committee. The rose-tinted spectacles that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has for that classic golden age of British government of 1974-79 are fascinating. Some of us have seen that interesting play, “This House”, about the experience of the 1974-79 Government, and that is not quite the quality of government that I remember. Some of us will have our doubts on minority government reinforced by that experience and our commitment to stable coalition strengthened.
Much of the evidence to the committee—which I read with fascination on Sunday—suggested that coalition will prove to have been exceptional; that single-party government is purer and clearer than coalition; that voters can give only one Government a mandate; and that if no party gets a majority of seats, it will be cleaner and somehow more democratic for the largest party on its own to form a minority Government. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, got a little close to saying that in describing his attitude to mandate. Perhaps off the Floor of the House he and I might discuss the difference between the Burkean view of parliamentary democracy and the populist view of popular democracy in which a general election is in effect a referendum to choose among the manifestos of the parties. I am for a parliamentary democracy; and in the British constitution as conventionally understood, it is Parliament that chooses the Government, and the Government rest on maintaining a majority in Parliament.
As the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Norton, said in the evidence, ours is an adversarial constitution based on the assumption that politics has to be based on the alternation in power of two mass parties contesting for power. As a number of noble Lords have also said, our constitution now has to adjust to the disappearance of mass parties and the splintering of popular loyalties. The latest public opinion polls, which your Lordships have all read in the past two or three days, show that the largest party is at 33.6% of the electorate. The second largest is at 31%, with two other parties at over 10%. There are some eight to nine different parties now represented in the House of Commons, depending on how one counts the Northern Ireland MPs. I note that the Prime Minister had a reception last week for the unionist MPs for Northern Ireland, which suggests that the potential for future government is being thought about in all sorts of ways. It is more likely that the diversity of parties will increase in the next Parliament, rather than decrease.
I note, from a discussion within the Labour Party and in the Guardian, the 35% strategy, and that Labour might perhaps hope to win a majority of seats on a third of the vote, or possibly even to form a minority Government on its own on the basis of 32% or 33% of the vote. There is a question of legitimacy here. I noted with great amusement in the 9 April evidence that the Deputy Prime Minister gave to the Constitution Committee that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked him what he thought was wrong with an appointed second Chamber. He said that there was a question of legitimacy, to which the noble and learned Lord said, “Only legitimacy?”. Legitimacy is a problem for government.
With this coalition Government we have had four years of remarkably stable government. I recall all the predictions from the Labour Benches in this House and the other place, to start with, that it would not last a year. It is highly likely at the next election that the people will fail or refuse to elect a majoritarian House of Commons for a single party. That will face us with the choice of changing the people, as the Leninists would like to say, or agreeing to adapt the constitution. I think that it is quite clear that we will have to adapt the constitution, and this report helpfully suggests a number of ways in which we should adapt.
From my experience of coalition Government, however, there are a number of coalition practices that ought to be practices of good government for any Government. We have returned to collective responsibility. We have had more formal meetings. Sometimes I feel that one of the problems with coalition Government is that it takes infinitely more time. There have to be more meetings—of our side and their side as well as of the two of us together. However, it means that government decisions are in most cases rather better considered. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, coalition strengthens the careful consideration of policies and limits unconsidered ministerial initiatives.
I also read in some of the evidence given to the committee a suggestion that coalition weakens the Prime Minister and that what we want is a really strong, effective, executive Prime Minister. After the experience of Tony Blair as Prime Minister, I think that there is quite a strong case for saying that having an Executive who are more effectively constrained by Parliament and collective discussion among different parties are good things for good government.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, made some odd remarks about inexperienced Ministers. My recollection is that after 13 years of a Labour Government, virtually no incoming Ministers in the current Government—Conservative or Liberal Democrat—had prior ministerial experience. The question of whether there should have been more training—the sort of work the Institute for Government is now offering—is one that we will all have to consider further.
The rose-tinted spectacles also touched on what the final years of single-party government were like. I remember the Major Government in 1996-97, with all the remarks about the “bastards” doing their best to stab the Prime Minister in the back. We all have memories of the last year of the Brown Government in 2009-10 and of the last year of the minority Labour Government in 1978-79. All demonstrated that each of our established major parties is itself a coalition—and sometimes an unstable and ill-tempered coalition at that.
A range of issues was raised in this excellent report. First, on the formation of a Government, I think we can all strongly agree that it may well need more than five days, that we would not wish to follow continental practice by allowing it to extend too far and that an agreement that it would be 12 days before Parliament meets probably sends the right signal for government formation. I think we also agree that we have moved some way towards the concept of a caretaker Government. That is also a good thing in the circumstances. The question was raised of how much information and advice would be given by civil servants. I can assure noble Lords that Civil Service support for government formation negotiations will again be offered.
I strongly agree—and I trust that my colleagues in government in the response will also strongly agree—that the Queen’s Speech offers the occasion for a vote to accept a coalition agreement, although the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was quite correct to say that it is a good thing if both parties are seen to accept it. My party had a special conference, and I have heard a number of Conservatives quietly say that they wish they had done something like that to tie their party into what they were doing. That would also perhaps be good practice.
A lot of time in this debate and in the report was spent on the issue of collective responsibility. I have to say that I was surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, refer to “frequent” breaches of the doctrine of collective responsibility in this Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell—if I heard him correctly—referred to the “abandonment” of collective responsibility. The Cabinet Manual says that collective responsibility should rest upon collective decision-making:
“Before a decision is made, ministers are given the opportunity to debate the issue, with a view to reaching an agreed position”.
That is quite clear: collective responsibility comes from collective decision-making.
There have been occasions in previous Governments when Prime Ministers have taken decisions without consulting their colleagues—occasionally even the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I would argue that, with a limited number of exceptions, collective responsibility in this Government works extremely well. The write-round has become much more the ritual procedure, partly because one has to make sure that Liberal Democrat and Conservative Ministers agree on things. It even reaches down to my lowly level. My stress level rose considerably last week when I received four 100-page reports with requests for my views on them by the close of play the following day because they had to go up to separate Secretaries of State. However, that is collective decision-making which ties us all in.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others remarked that a lot of this is to do with trust and a willingness to compromise, and we all know that in any Government there will be some with whom it is easy to work on a trustful basis and others with whom it will be difficult. I remember being told by officials that in the 1974 to 1979 Government there were papers marked, “Do not show to Tony Benn”. There was a lack of trust within the coalition that was the Labour Party. On the whole, in any Government one can write down the rules but one needs to have a degree of give and take and a willingness to make it work that keeps the Government together. From my own limited experience within this Government, I have to say that it works pretty well. There are, of course, exceptions from time to time—trust does break down—but we are still here, and we will be here until May next year.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that breaches of collective responsibility demonstrate the unsuitability of coalitions to the British system of government—although perhaps I misheard her on that. It seems to me that collective responsibility has had to adapt to coalition, and has adapted fairly well.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
What I said was that it lent some credibility to those who argue that the system of coalition Government was not as suited as others to our system of government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
As it happens, I visited Hughenden two weeks ago and bought and have since read the biography of Disraeli by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. I have now discovered the very odd conditions under which he made the great statement that coalitions are not suitable to the British constitution. I think that we all now agree that the British constitution can adapt to a stable coalition Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others raised the question of the Lords. Much of the question of what we do with the Salisbury/Addison convention was discussed in the Joint Committee on Conventions in 2007. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord said in his evidence, and has said again tonight, that the conventions have adapted since then. The Lords conventionally does not vote against the Second Reading of any Bill, but we are willing to amend it. The idea of the mandate and the manifesto Bill was much easier in the 1940s and 1950s, when parties got 48% or 50% of the vote. When giving evidence to that Joint Committee, I went back to that 1945 Labour manifesto, which has a page that lists a series of Bills that the Labour Party wished to take through. I compared that with the 1997 Labour manifesto, in which I could find no single firm commitment of that sort. We have all changed our manifestos in that way.
I have some sympathy with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on the numbers of Ministers in the Lords and their degree of seniority—and I have, of course, intense sympathy with his remarks on those who are not paid, but perhaps we will save that for another time.
The question of fixed-term Parliaments has also been raised. The question of how we handle the final year of such a Parliament is clearly one that we all need to address fairly rapidly. Some interesting comments have been made about the opportunity that the final year provides to think longer term and to prepare. One area in which I have some responsibility is the national security strategy, which should be prepared in the fifth year of a Government for publication early in the new term of the new Government. That is something that we should think actively about for some other areas as well. For example, we could all consider long-term spending trends within government and how far we cope with the inexorable rise in health costs and pensions, which we all know are coming down to us. There is a great deal there to discuss further.
On access to civil servants, I confirm that there will be no change in the long-standing principles set out in the Cabinet Manual and that guidance on pre-election contacts will be issued to civil servants nearer the time when contacts are due to commence, at the beginning of October.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the question of whether we have to have a wash-up. As we have just discovered at the end of this Session, one can never predict until the end of the Session whether we will have agreed all Bills by the time the Session comes to an end. We may hope that we will agree everything by then, but we will have to see what happens when it comes to it.
Lastly, we have not talked very much about the role of the Civil Service. The role of the Civil Service in holding a coalition together is vital. I hope that the Constitution Committee will return to the role of the Civil Service in further inquiries. From my own experience of the high quality of officials and their remarkable tact and patience in managing the coalition Government, I have to say that we have been extremely well served. I have found the work of the special advisers for both parties absolutely invaluable. The distinction between their role and that of officials is also something to which the Constitution Committee might return.
I again apologise to noble Lords that they have not yet had the Government’s response to the report. I thank the committee very much for this invaluable report. It is a subject which we all need to think about as we approach the next election. The opinion polls will no doubt go up and down in various directions, but after the election we will have to face the question of how we form the next Government, whatever shape that may be.
Baroness Jay of Paddington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and my noble friend Lord Kennedy for his comments. I, of course, accept the Minister’s apology to the committee and to the House for the delay in the Government’s response. I hope very much that his aspiration that it will be available in time for the Queen’s Speech will be fulfilled.
I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate. Even by the usual high standards of House of Lords debates on Constitution Committee reports it has been exceptional. It has been illuminated by a great deal of first-hand experience from a former Cabinet Secretary, a former Leader of the House and those who have taken part in the Liberal Democrat proceedings. As I say, that illuminated the debate.
We should all take note of what the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said about looking to the future rather than the past. I have to say in parenthesis that, when we look at the past, my sympathies are not surprisingly with the view of the past held by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. However, taking up the specific point made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, I think that we will face what has been described as a challenging 12 months in the fifth year of this Parliament and this Government. Whether we can hold our breath and do some work on the retrospective scrutiny of committee inquiries I rather doubt, but it is an extremely interesting idea.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, this is a very significant report by the committee. The debate tonight has illustrated again what we knew when we held the inquiry—namely, that the line between constitutional debate and raw politics is very fine indeed. This debate has reflected the findings of our inquiry in that even the most neutral and objective taking of evidence and deliberation, which we certainly seek in the Constitution Committee, can be translated into raw and tough politics. I hope that this subject will be mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. I look forward to that.