House of Commons
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
1. What assessment she has made of progress made by the Northern Ireland Executive on building a shared future in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
In May 2013, the Northern Ireland Executive published their strategy, “Together: Building a United Community”, which contained a number of key actions to help build a shared future for Northern Ireland. The Government support efforts to embed the political settlement through the delivery of those commitments. Additional borrowing powers have been granted to the Northern Ireland Executive by the Government to support those programmes.
Andrew Bridgen
Like my right hon. Friend, I welcome the publication last year of “Together: Building a United Community” by the Northern Ireland Executive. Does she agree that addressing community divisions is absolutely key if Northern Ireland is to gain the full benefits of the peace process?
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Apart from anything else, it is crucial to address those issues to embed political stability, because that is key in attracting inward investment and boosting Northern Ireland’s prosperity. The Government, including the Prime Minister, have pushed the Northern Ireland Executive on these matters and very much welcome the progress that is now being made.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
As we move into the parading season, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will comment on what she thinks the contribution of Sinn Fein is when it objects and protests, for instance, against a parade in Dungiven, where there are no flags, bands or anything of that sort that could cause offence to anyone, and against the sharing of a main arterial route in north Belfast? Where is the shared future in that?
Mrs Villiers
I believe that all parties who are involved in or affected by parading have a responsibility to engage constructively to find local solutions and build local relationships and trust, which are essential to a peaceful parading season. That goes for Sinn Fein, as it does for all other groupings that are involved in such matters.
Mr Dodds
Will the Secretary of State also comment on what contribution is made to a shared future by people who go out, as Sinn Fein has done, to glorify and revel in the murderous past of the IRA and to cause great offence to victims—for instance, by refusing to go to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee sitting on Monday and refusing to be open and transparent about the on-the-runs scheme? What sort of contribution is that to a shared future? Would the Secretary of State care to comment on that?
Mrs Villiers
As I have said many times, it is important for all political leaders in Northern Ireland to express themselves in temperate terms and to bear in mind the impact of their statements on members of the community who come from different traditions. The way forward for Northern Ireland is to build mutual respect, rather than to focus on division and disunity with inflammatory statements.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend explain how that division is to be addressed when the state continues to fund segregated education to the extent that it does?
Mrs Villiers
There is a live debate in Northern Ireland about such matters. I believe that it is possible to ensure that the education system plays its part in building a shared future, without undermining parental choice. That is why I welcome the proposals in “Together: Building a United Community” that provide for far more opportunities for children and young people to learn alongside others from different traditions through the promotion of shared education. In addition, much work is under way on integrated education.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
12. A shared future in Northern Ireland must be for everyone, regardless of race. I am sure that the Secretary of State will deplore the despicable attacks against Anna Lo, a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to address hate crime in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about hate crimes in Northern Ireland. There has been a distressing number of such incidents over recent months. I strongly condemned those incidents in a speech that I made to the Police Federation for Northern Ireland. I have, of course, discussed these matters with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, including with the Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable Finlay. Such attacks are unacceptable and incompatible with a civilised society, and I totally condemn the attacks that have taken place.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Further to the last question, there is a small but significant number of ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. What more needs to be done by the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that those minorities can play a full part in a shared future for the Province?
Mrs Villiers
In reflecting on how to build a shared society, it is important for the Northern Ireland Executive to look not just at the traditional divisions in Northern Ireland’s society, but at how more can be done to integrate and support minority communities in Northern Ireland. One way in which they can do that is by providing leadership and condemning the attacks that have taken place.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
There has been a recent announcement about the resumption of inter-party talks, which will deal with issues that are a barrier to building a shared future: flags, parades and dealing with the past. Will the Secretary of State outline what she and the British Government will do to ensure that those talks are brought to a successful conclusion and what her exact role will be?
Mrs Villiers
I will continue to urge all the parties in Northern Ireland to engage in the discussions on flags, parading and the past. The Prime Minister is also taking a close interest in that, with his article in the Belfast Telegraph making a strong argument for pressing ahead with an agreement for the sake of the future of Northern Ireland. Both he and I have had several conversations with Northern Ireland’s leaders in recent days. We will continue to encourage, support and facilitate the discussions between party leaders and work in a co-ordinated way with colleagues in Dublin and Washington, who are of course also interested in these matters.
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will agree that a successful shared future largely depends on the younger generation. A recent poll in the Belfast Telegraph suggested that two thirds of young people want to leave Northern Ireland for good, with many citing sectarianism as one of the reasons. Does she agree that a summit of politicians, business people, civil society and representatives of young people should be convened urgently to begin to address that crucial issue?
Mrs Villiers
I am sure that such a summit would be helpful in looking at those matters. It is key to make progress on addressing sectarianism, but rebuilding and rebalancing the economy is also crucial to addressing the grave concern that the hon. Gentleman raises. I hope that this morning’s positive announcement on jobs for Northern Ireland will start to resolve these matters, not least the news that the claimant count in Northern Ireland has fallen again today for the 17th month in succession.
Mr Lewis
Now that the local and European elections are over, there is a window of opportunity for the Northern Ireland all-party talks to reach an agreement on parades and the past before the summer recess at Stormont. That is an important milestone on the way to achieving a shared future. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are willing to play a far more proactive role than they have done in the past in facilitating the all-party talks? Will she clarify the level of financial support that the UK Government will make available to support any agreement?
Mrs Villiers
We are playing a proactive role and will continue to do so. I made the point strongly to party leaders over recent days that the process needs to be more intensive to take advantage of the coming weeks. I welcome the fact that the party leaders are now addressing the intensity of the process by setting up longer meetings, with a secretariat. The Prime Minister and I will continue to do all we can to support this process, but ultimately the answer has to come from Northern Ireland’s political leaders. It is not within our gift to impose a solution from outside and we will not do that.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
2. When she expects the National Crime Agency to be operating in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Although the National Crime Agency currently operates in Northern Ireland in relation to non-devolved matters, and in support of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, its important work is restricted by the lack of agreement among the Northern Ireland parties on the agency’s remit there. Discussions between them are proceeding and very early resolution is essential.
Mr Hanson
On 23 April 2013, Royal Assent was given to the Crime and Courts Act, which established the National Crime Agency. We spent many months in Committee discussing the agency. We were given assurances by Ministers that this matter would be resolved by last October or November. Will the Minister tell me, 14 months later, when he intends to ensure that the National Crime Agency operates in Northern Ireland?
Mr Robathan
If I may digress slightly, I pay tribute to the retiring Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Matt Baggott, who was previously chief constable of Leicestershire, and wish him well in his retirement. I also wish his successor, George Hamilton, well in his post.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is complicated. I do not think that we disagree about it at all. There are political parties in Northern Ireland—Sinn Fein and the Social Democratic and Labour party—that refuse to sign up to the National Crime Agency. We want the National Crime Agency to move forward in Northern Ireland and the serious gaps that are emerging in crime prevention and pursuit to be closed, but he will understand from his past that we have devolved policing and justice and that, unless we wish to break the Sewel convention, we will have to work with the parties in Northern Ireland to get some agreement.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that there have been numerous incidents in Northern Ireland in the past two or three years involving organised criminal gangs on the border, particularly fuel smuggling, fuel laundering, and money laundering, and that has escalated over the past two years. Will he outline the consequences of a failure to have the National Crime Agency fully operational in Northern Ireland?
Mr Robathan
It has been said that serious gaps are emerging. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these are devolved matters, but we are keen that the National Crime Agency should be able to pursue organised and serious crime in Northern Ireland, and there is no difference between us on that at all. Two parties in the Executive are holding things up, however, and I ask why they are doing that and why we do not all want to pursue serious criminality in the Province.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
3. When she plans to report to the House on her Department’s inquiry into the administrative scheme for on-the-runs.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
While Lady Justice Hallett is making progress on her report, she has informed me that it will not be ready for publication until shortly after the 30 June deadline.
Mr Donaldson
The Secretary of State will be aware of deep concern in Northern Ireland about revelations that a number of terrorist suspects were granted the royal prerogative of mercy—in other words, pardons— for serious terrorist crimes. Will the report on the on-the-runs include information about those who have been granted such so-called pardons?
Mrs Villiers
It is an independent report so I do not know what it will contain, but given the concerns raised about the use of the royal prerogative of mercy, I expect that aspects of that issue will be covered in Lady Justice Hallett’s report. I emphasise that this Government have not used the RPM in Northern Ireland, and it was used by the previous Government on only 18 occasions. Sixteen of those involved terrorism, but in all cases it was used to shorten sentences, not to cancel the offence.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has spent two days in Belfast taking evidence for our on-the-runs inquiry, including from victims and relatives of victims who gave the most harrowing accounts of what had happened to their loved ones. Does the Secretary of State agree that whenever we decide about writing letters to suspects or issuing royal pardons, the views and needs of victims should be at the heart of those considerations? Does she further agree that that has not always been the case?
Mrs Villiers
I agree on both those points. I know that many victims of terrorism would have been deeply hurt by the OTR issue, which is why I apologise to them on behalf of the Government. Future reports and investigations on such matters should put victims at their centre, as should any broader solution looking at the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
In the past, security forces have used informers to help defeat terrorists. Does my right hon. Friend agree that issuing royal pardons to on-the-runs is a world apart from using royal pardons as a way of encouraging and using informers? Will she give an undertaking that the Government will not do anything to put at risk the use of informers in Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
It is not generally Government practice to comment on sensitive operational matters such as those, but I acknowledge that the use of informers is an important means of combating crime and terrorism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
4. What steps she has taken in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to attract jobs to Northern Ireland by promoting its film industry.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Economic rebalancing is essential and we fully support it through our economic pact with the Executive. Creative industries are an essential element worth half a billion pounds annually, and Invest NI and UKTI both strongly promote them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met HBO—Home Box Office—at Hillsborough and in America to promote Northern Ireland as a destination of choice.
Jim Shannon
The popular TV series “Game of Thrones” was filmed in my constituency and is watched by more than 2 million people—there is no better place to have a film made than Strangford. The Northern Ireland screen budget has recently been raised by £43 million, which will raise a further £194 million for the local economy. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the local South Eastern Regional College, based in Newtownards, will have the skills and training to increase the economy even more?
Mr Robathan
The skills are best dealt with by the people of Northern Ireland and the college. I visited “Game of Thrones” in Paint Hall in Belfast and was very impressed. Carla Stronge, of Extras NI, is quoted in the Belfast Telegraph today:
“When I started up in 2007 there were just two people working in my company. Since Game of Thrones started, I have had to take on more people and now there are 11 people working for me”.
We fully support that. I saw the castle in Strangford that is used in “Game of Thrones” only last week.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I find myself, oddly enough, in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That may disturb him more than it disturbs me. The Northern Irish film and television industry now has a global reputation for excellence. He referred to “Game of Thrones”. There is also Ridley Scott’s “Halo”, “The Fall” and many other productions. However, they tend to utilise talent from within the Belfast area. With youth unemployment still far higher outside Belfast than in the rest of Great Britain, what is the Minister doing to work with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and other agencies to extend the benefits throughout the north?
Mr Robathan
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. At its height, “Game of Thrones” has employed up to 800 people. As we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), it employs people from around the Province—Antrim, Strangford and elsewhere. The Government have introduced high-end television tax relief that has brought very real benefits to the creative industries in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We are bringing down unemployment and strengthening the economy. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to remember the state of the economy when he left office in 2010.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
5. What role she plans to play in advancing a comprehensive process for dealing with the past and its legacy.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Prime Minister and I have been engaged with Northern Ireland’s political leaders in recent weeks to urge them to make progress on finding an agreed way forward on the past. The Prime Minister’s article in the Belfast Telegraph made the case strongly for an agreement on all three Haass issues. We both welcome the fact that party leaders are meeting again and are planning to step up their engagement on these matters with a more intensive process. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House can scarcely hear the Secretary of State. That is not her fault, but the fault of Members. We are discussing extremely serious matters. Let us have a bit of order.
Naomi Long
At the evidence sessions for the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we heard directly from victims sector individuals who expressed their disappointment and distrust—indeed, their profound upset—at what had happened with the on-the-runs, and their need to see closure on this issue. What can the UK Government bring to the table as part of the talks that are about to start to ensure a fully comprehensive deal on the past that is transparent and respects the sensitivities of victims?
Mrs Villiers
As I have said already, I believe that a way forward on the past has to put victims at its heart. I also agree with the hon. Lady that a new process needs to be transparent, balanced and accountable. As the OTRs issue has demonstrated, it is vital that we put any side deals behind us and that the way we approach the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is balanced, transparent and accountable. We have said that we will work with the kind of institutions set out in Haass 7 if they are formally agreed by the parties.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
11. The Secretary of State will be aware that many people in Northern Ireland are living in dread of the potential for another summer of disruption and distress. So that people are not held to ransom through another summer of protests, intimidation and violence, does the Secretary of State agree that there is now a compelling need for both the British and Irish Governments to become fully engaged in bringing the Haass discussions, and the discussions that have flowed from them, to a productive conclusion?
Mrs Villiers
Both the UK and Irish Governments will continue to support the efforts of party leaders to reach a conclusion on the Haass issues. Like the hon. Gentleman, I urge everyone, as we approach the height of the parading season, to comply with the rule of law to ensure that all protests and all parades are both peaceful and lawful, and that the Parades Commission’s determinations are complied with.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that getting Sinn Fein to tell the truth about the past is like hoping that Nick Clegg will be the Deputy Prime Minister after the 2015 election? Does she agree that the best way to deal with the past at this precise time is for her Government to annul the letters to the on-the-runs?
Mrs Villiers
As I have said many times in relation to those letters, they did not confer an amnesty; they were merely a statement of fact about an individual’s status with regard to the police and prosecuting authorities at a particular point in time, and that was confirmed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee yesterday.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
There should be no amnesty or “get out of jail free” card for troubles-related crimes, but does the Secretary of State agree that in 90% of cases, according to experts, victims will not get justice by pursuing prosecutions alone, because the evidence is simply not available to bring those cases to trial and get a conclusion?
Mrs Villiers
What came across clearly was that many victims wanted the possibility of justice. I think they would accept that in many cases that is going to be difficult to achieve, but it would be unacceptable to introduce an amnesty and deprive victims of any hope of receiving justice.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
6. What assessment she has made of the current security situation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The threat level in Northern Ireland remains severe, with persistent planning and targeting by terrorists. However, action by the PSNI and its partners continues to keep the pressure on these terrorist groups, greatly constraining their ability to carry out their lethal objectives.
Dr McCrea
Will the Secretary of State confirm that those terrorists who received a royal pardon, including Liam Averill, did so as a reward for giving vital information to the security forces? As well as other, overt activity to defeat the threat of terrorism, will she confirm that the security services have infiltrated, and will infiltrate, dissident republican terrorist cells, as they successfully did to defeat the Provisional IRA, using high-profile informants without royal pardons?
Mrs Villiers
As I said in response to the earlier question on the use of agents and informants, it is not the Government’s practice to comment on such operational matters. However, I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that the PSNI and its partners in the Security Service are working incredibly hard to do everything they can to combat these terrorists and have had a number of successes, not least with recent arrests of leading figures in the dissident republican groupings.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
13. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the recent attack in the name of the IRA on a hotel in my constituency was an attack not just on that business, but on the city? Does she support the city in having a strong, resilient response that says, “We are not going to be a place of cold security; we are going to be a place of warmth, welcome and safety”?
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
7. What assessment she has made of the social and economic effects of youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Andrew Robathan)
Youth unemployment is a critical issue. Specific measures to address it in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Executive, but the Government’s efforts to reduce the largest structural deficit in UK peacetime history are now bearing fruit. This, more than anything, will help to deliver a sustainable economic recovery and so directly assist young people to get into employment.
Ian Lavery
Despite the 2.6% reduction in youth unemployment, it still stands at an alarming 18.6%. Can the Minister say what measures the Government are putting in place to allow young people to access and progress into employment?
Mr Robathan
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter of employment today of all days, as we bring the rate of unemployment across the UK down to 6.6%—which is pretty good, I would say—and in the 17th consecutive month in Northern Ireland when the claimant count has been down. Youth unemployment is down over the quarter by 2.4%. All youth unemployment is unfortunate, but we are working at it and achieving our aims, and I hope he would congratulate us on that.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
8. Does the Minister of State agree that today’s employment figures prove that the long-term economic plan is working in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, demonstrating that the Conservative party has won the economic argument?
Mr Robathan
My hon. Friend may not be surprised to know that I do agree with him that the long-term economic plan is indeed working. I hope that Opposition Members will congratulate the Government on reducing the unemployment rate both in Northern Ireland and across the country, to the benefit of all the people of this United Kingdom.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
9. Will the Minister update the House on what action UK Trade & Investment has taken with the participants in last year’s economic investment conference to increase much needed inward investment into Northern Ireland?
Mr Robathan
The investment conference was a great success, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. Out of that came further inward investment through Fujitsu and others, and we reckon that some 300 jobs were created just from the investment conference.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
10. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Invest NI on an excellent year for attracting investment into Northern Ireland, and does he agree that the Prime Minister’s decision to take the G8 to Northern Ireland in June and to attend the international investment conference in October has played a key role in helping that objective?
Mr Robathan
I do of course. I welcome my hon. Friend back from his recent illness; I am delighted to see him and pay tribute to his work on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. We can all see that the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s engagement in investment in Northern Ireland has been hugely successful. I hope that everyone in the House would congratulate us on that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Today’s unemployment statistics show that the work of the Northern Ireland Executive in reducing youth unemployment is succeeding, but what specific measures are there in the Queen’s Speech to indicate a way of reducing youth unemployment at a national level for all regions across the United Kingdom?
Mr Robathan
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Queen’s Speech is dedicated to pursuing this long-term economic plan, and it is working. There are no specific measures that immediately spring to mind for Northern Ireland, but we all wish to see the economy grow and people in Northern Ireland prospering as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I think that is happening. I am currently visiting a lot of places in Northern Ireland and find people buoyant and optimistic about the future of Northern Ireland and its economy.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 11 June.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in wishing the England football team the very best of British before their first World cup game this Saturday in Brazil.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Katy Clark
I wish good luck to every football team in the World cup.
Less than a quarter of people who have applied for the new personal independence payment have received a decision. If we continue at this rate, it will take more than 40 years to get to the point where everyone has been assessed. Does the Prime Minister think that that is acceptable, and what is he going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
It is extremely important when we introduce these new benefits that we make sure it is done in a way that works well. I would say it is very important not to have an artificial deadline of replacing one benefit with another. The whole point about the personal independence payment is that it is more accurate and more targeted than disability living allowance. It will mean more help for those with the greatest disabilities, and I am determined we get it right.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on organising this week’s important global summit to end sexual violence, and does he agree that it is indeed time to act?
The Prime Minister
I give huge credit to the Foreign Secretary for the work he has done, but I would also like to pay tribute to all the non-governmental organisations across various countries of the world, which have all come together for this extraordinary summit in London. It is absolutely vital that we never forget about the victims of sexual violence in conflict. This is something that is still far too prevalent in our world, but real advances have been made by having a declaration which countries are signing up to and, even more importantly, by having an action plan of how to gather evidence, prosecute the wrongdoers and make sure that they are properly punished, while helping the survivors. Listening to the testimony of survivors yesterday in Downing street was immensely powerful.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me first join the Prime Minister in wishing the England team the best of luck in the World cup. The whole country will, I am sure, be behind it.
Everyone will have been concerned by what has been happening at certain schools in Birmingham—including girls being forced to sit at the back of the class and the forced removal of head teachers. At the heart of this story is a failure of accountability—locally and nationally—but the key question for parents is this: if there is a serious problem at their children’s school, where do they go to get it sorted out?
The Prime Minister
Let me echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about how important it is to get a grip on this issue. The problem of Islamist extremism in our schools is serious—the situation, not just in Birmingham but elsewhere, is extremely serious—and I am absolutely determined, as are the Home Secretary, the Education Secretary and, indeed, the whole Government, to ensure that it is unacceptable in our country. People should be being taught in our schools in a way that ensures that they can play a full part in the life of our country. As for where people should go if they are concerned about what is happening in their schools, they should go first to the head teacher and the chair of governors.
While I hope that we can forge real unity across the House of Commons on the issue of combating Islamist extremism in our schools, I hope that that will not be used as an agenda to try to knock down successful school formats, whether they are academies created under the last Government or free schools created under this Government.
Edward Miliband
There is certainly a degree of common ground on what our kids are taught in schools and on the need for a proper upholding of values, but the Prime Minister said that people should go to the head teacher or the chair of governors. In certain cases, the head teacher was removed and the governing body was part of the problem. The truth is that the question of who parents can go to is a very hard question to answer, because we have an incredibly fragmented school system in which no one is properly responsible. Some of the schools involved were local authority schools and some were academies, but what parents want is for someone who is responsible on a day-to-day basis to be able to intervene quickly when things go wrong. Does there not need to be one system of accountability for all schools to safeguard the education of our children?
The Prime Minister
As I said, the first port of call is the head teacher and the chair of governors. However, if people believe that there is a real problem, there is one organisation that has responsibility for checking standards in all these schools, and that, of course, is Ofsted. That is why what the Education Secretary has said about no-notice inspections is so important. The Leader of the Opposition asked how intervention could happen quickly; well, it will happen quickly if we have the no-notice inspections.
What I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, because this is an important debate, is that if we are saying that there is only one model of accountability that will work—and some Members believe that the only model of accountability is local government accountability—it is worth making the point that Birmingham city council failed in its duty to these parents. Indeed, when we look at what caused action to happen, we see that it was only when the Department for Education was contacted that proper action was taken. So yes, let us learn the lessons, and let us listen to the permanent secretary to the Education Department when he reports, but let us learn the right lessons.
Edward Miliband
It is definitely worth making the point about local authorities and academies, and that is why I made the point. Ofsted inspections may happen only once every five years, and that is not the kind of system of accountability that we need.
Here is the thing on which I think we should be able to agree. No one, surely, believes that the Department for Education can run 20,000 schools from Whitehall. Perhaps the Secretary of State believes that, but I do not think that anyone can possibly really believe it. However, no one is arguing that we should go back to the old local authority system either. Is it not time—[Interruption.] Will Government Members just listen to the question? Is it not time that we had a proper system of local oversight, separate from councils and responsible for standards in all schools, to prevent what happened in Birmingham from happening elsewhere?
The Prime Minister
I always listen very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s proposals, but I have to say that that sounds like creating a new local bureaucracy at a time when we need to ensure that resources are going into schools for the teachers, the computers, the books and the equipment.
The right hon. Gentleman says that an Ofsted inspection can take place only every five years. The point about the no-notice inspections, if we are going to give this issue the attention that it deserves, is that a report and a suspicion expressed to Ofsted about these problems could result in an instant inspection and instant action.
Let me make just one more point. It is often said that some of the schools with new formats, namely free schools or academies, which I thought that Labour Members supported—well, they used to when they were still sensible—do not act as fast as local authority schools. In fact, completely the opposite is the case. When there has been a problem in free schools or converter academies, they have taken far faster action than many of the local authority schools that have been left in a state of failure for far too long.
Edward Miliband
I have to say to the Prime Minister that he has no answer on the question of accountability because it is not realistic to do it centrally and Ofsted inspections are not going to do the job. Everyone knows that.
I want to turn from the failures in the Department for Education to the failures in the Home Office. Can the Prime Minister update the House on his latest estimate of the backlog of people waiting for their passport applications to be processed?
The Prime Minister
It is extremely important that we get the situation with the passport agency right. I understand people are anxious. They want to get their passport. They want to be able to go on holiday. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the facts. We have 300,000 more applications than is normal at this time of year. We have massively increased the staff. The level of applications outside the normal three-week limit is less than 10% of that 300,000.
Edward Miliband
The truth is that tens of thousands of people are finding that their holidays are being cancelled because they are not getting a passport. The Prime Minister says that the Government have increased the resources of the passport agency. That is not the case. Since 2010, there have been greater responsibilities for the passport agency and fewer resources. When did the Government first know about the problem and how has it been allowed to develop?
The Prime Minister
The Government have taken action to deal with this problem not today but in weeks gone past. We have 250 staff already redeployed to the front line, prioritising all outstanding applications. That will allow for an extra 25,000 examinations weekly. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked the questions. People will be concerned about this. They will want to hear the answers. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. That is certainly true. Mr Robertson, you do have something of a lion’s roar and it rather lets you down because I can hear clearly that it is you. As for you, Mr Lucas, I have told you that you need to go on some sort of therapeutic training course if you are to attain the level of statesmanship to which you aspire. Let us hear the answer.
The Prime Minister
The Government have made sure, as I said, that 250 extra staff have been deployed, that there are longer opening hours at the Passport Office—and it is now working seven days a week—and that there are 650 extra staff on the helplines to support customers. The Home Secretary has announced today that new offices will be opened in Liverpool next week, with an additional 100 staff. The Home Office has been on this from the very start, but it all begins with 300,000 extra people applying for passports compared with this time last year. Those are the actions that are being taken. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be careful not to try to frighten people in the way he did in his opening question.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister says that the Government are sorting out the problem, but tens of thousands of people, we understand, are waiting for their applications to be processed and are finding that their holidays are being cancelled. The truth of the picture of this Government is that we have the Home Secretary fighting with the Education Secretary but not paying attention to the business of government. Here is the thing. To add insult to injury, people are being told that, if they want their applications to be processed within the three-week target, they will have to pay £55 extra. Can the Prime Minister get a grip on this situation and tell families when the backlog will be cleared?
The Prime Minister
We will be clearing the backlog not least because we are not wasting time with the national identity card scheme that we inherited from the Labour party. Is it not interesting that there was not a word about the unemployment figures? The right hon. Gentleman simply cannot bear the fact that in our country we now have 2 million more people in work in the private sector. He cannot stand the fact that unemployment has fallen yet again. The claimant count has come down. He is absolutely allergic to good news because he knows that as our economy gets stronger he gets weaker.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
It is now 28 years since the devastating accident in Chernobyl and the effects are still being felt, particularly by children. Last year, while many were dying, we ceased to supply gratis visas to children from the affected regions to come to the UK for respite care. Will the Prime Minister look again at our policy because, since charging for those visas, we have seen a 50% reduction in the number of young people being able to come to the UK for respite?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to look at the case my hon. Friend raises—we all remember the appalling incident at Chernobyl and the long-term effects it had on people. We charge for visas because we have to cover the cost of visa operations to make sure we are protecting ourselves from people who should not come here but do come here, and that is important, but I will look carefully at what my hon. Friend said, and perhaps I will write to him.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Q2. Does the Prime Minister agree that now more than ever we need to bend our efforts to build a strong, robust civil society? One hundred years ago this August a war broke out that killed 16 million people, mainly young men, and devastated communities. Active participation in politics is declining rapidly. Only 34% of people voted in the recent Euro elections. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet on a cross-party basis to look seriously at citizenship in this country and at how we build a society that encourages active citizenship?
The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman: turnout at some of these elections is very depressing. I think people feel that the European institutions are rather distant from them and do not see the relevance of them. Of course I am happy to look at what he says about citizenship, but I would prefer that we put our resources and effort into practical programmes such as the National Citizen Service, which is now a superb service that many young people are taking part in, so they can see the importance of engaging in their communities and in the world. I think that will lead, among other things, to greater political participation.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Q3. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the 2 million new private sector jobs that have been created since 2010, and will he continue with the long-term economic plan, to make sure the figure goes up?
The Prime Minister
This is an important milestone that we have reached: there are now 2 million more private sector jobs than when this Government came to office. That is 2 million reasons for sticking to the long-term economic plan we have set out. May I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for the work he has done for his constituents in Weaver Vale, in running job club after job club, to help make sure the businesses that need more workers are put in touch with the people looking for a job? That is a vital service that Members of Parliament are delivering, and he is leading the way.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Given the revelation that the royal prerogative of mercy was granted in at least 16 cases relating to terrorism in the days and weeks immediately following the Belfast agreement, and, indeed, in cases stretching back to the 1980s, will the Prime Minister agree, in the interests of openness, transparency and, not least, justice for the victims in Northern Ireland—and here in Britain itself—that he should be intervening to make sure the names and circumstances in these exercises of the royal prerogative of mercy are revealed, as happens in the rest of the United Kingdom, so people know the facts of these cases?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully, as I always do, at what the right hon. Gentleman says about this, but what I would say is that the last Government had to make very difficult decisions to try to get the peace process started by John Major on track and working. I do not want to unpick all those difficult decisions or second-guess them, because, yes, we have frustrations and difficulties and many other issues that still need to be settled in Northern Ireland, but we have the basic architecture of devolution and parties working together across historical divides, and I do not want to put that at risk.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Q4. Today’s employment figures show that unemployment in Kingswood is down by 37% since May 2010 and, as the MP for Kingswood, since 2012 I have held eight jobs fairs advertising hundreds of local jobs—just some of the 2 million private sector jobs created since this Government came to office—but there is still more to do. Together with the Kingswood job centre, I am launching the Kingswood challenge today, a mentoring or job fostering scheme where local business leaders will be paired with local people looking for work, helping to provide them with one-to-one support.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing with these job fairs to put people who want work in touch with businesses, and this is absolutely key, because there is no complacency on this side of the House about unemployment whatsoever. Youth unemployment, long-term unemployment: we still need to remove these scourges from our country. We have a goal of full employment and the way we will achieve that goal is not simply through a growing economy—now growing faster than those of other countries in the G7—but by making sure we help people and train people and give them all that is necessary to get on and get a job and have that security and stability in their lives.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Q5. Shockingly, one in three children in the north-east are now living in poverty—the highest rate in the UK. Significantly, two out of three young people living in poverty are now from working households. Does the Prime Minister agree that something has gone badly wrong in regard to child poverty? Will he please, please tell me where it all went wrong in the first place?
The Prime Minister
I say to the hon. Gentleman that the best route out of poverty is work. If we look at the north-east, we see that the number of people employed there is up by 47,000 over the last year. That is what is happening in the north-east. I know that Labour Members want to have this narrative in our country, but let me give them some facts. Inequality is at its lowest since 1986. There are 300,000 fewer children living in poverty than there were when I became Prime Minister, and there are 500,000 fewer people in relative poverty than at the election. Above all—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Campbell, when you are eating curry in the Kennington Tandoori, you do not yell across the restaurant: don’t yell across the Floor of this House.
The Prime Minister
What we need to do is tackle the causes of poverty: underachievement at school, homelessness, lack of work, drug addiction. That is what drives this Government, and that is what we are dealing with. There are 250,000 fewer children in failing schools than when this Government took office.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
Atos is taking even longer to carry out medical assessments of applicants for disability benefits who live in Argyll and Bute than it is taking elsewhere, because it is reluctant to send assessors all the way to my constituency. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that that is unacceptable. Will he tell Atos that it must not discriminate against people living in Argyll and Bute in that way, and that people there should receive their assessments as quickly as people living in the rest of the country?
The Prime Minister
Obviously there are challenges in particularly far-flung rural constituencies such as that of the hon. Gentleman, which has many islands in it, but we have to make sure that people’s assessments are properly carried out. Those assessments are important. The whole point about this Government’s programme is that we do not want to leave people on unemployment or other benefits year after year. We want these tests and assessments to be properly carried out so that we can see whether people are eligible for benefits and what help they need to get work.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q6. Did the Prime Minister’s intention to legislate to help people with the costs and insecurity of renting their homes lose its slot in a packed Queen’s Speech legislative programme to the plan to ban plastic bags, or did he perhaps not have any such proposals in the first place?
The Prime Minister
What this Government are doing is ensuring that we build more houses. That is what we absolutely need to do to help those who are renting or buying. Yes, we need greater transparency in regard to what letting agencies do, and we are delivering that as part of our programme, but I do not believe that a policy of rent controls—which the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the letting agents themselves have said would put up rents—is the answer.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Q7. Metal fabricators, hydraulic fitters, computer numerically controlled machine turners, mechanical engineers and vehicle maintenance apprenticeships are just some of the real jobs for local people that are on offer at my jobs fair in Holmfirth. Following the news that 2 million private sector jobs have been created since 2010, will the Prime Minister continue to support the small and medium-sized enterprises in Yorkshire that are creating real jobs and quality apprenticeships?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely I will. My hon. Friend makes a good point; we are seeing a rebalancing of our economy. Just this week we have seen a growth in manufacturing and all the elements of GDP, such as construction and manufacturing, growing. We want to see a recovery that is broadly based across the different sectors and in every part of the country. When it comes to today’s figures, we can see that pay levels in industries such as manufacturing and services, rather than financial services, are on the rise.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Q8. Last week, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said that people in the UK had“not yet felt any sense of recovery.”The Office for National Statistics has confirmed today that full-time workers in the north-east are £36 a week worse off than they were last year. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Cabinet colleague?
The Prime Minister
The point I make to the hon. Lady is that, as I have just said, there are 47,000 more people in work in the north-east than there were a year ago. The best route out of poverty is work, and what that needs to be followed by are the tax reductions this Government are bringing in to make sure that people are in work and better off in work—that is going to make a difference.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Q9. Pentland, a company based in my constituency, increased its turnover by 10% to more than £2 billion last year and increased its work force significantly, contributing to the 2 million private sector jobs created under this Government. In addition, the company has just been voted European family business of the year. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Pentland and agree to visit this British success story?
The Prime Minister
I am sure I will be visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency before long, but I join him in congratulating this great British company. I believe it came with me on my visit to China, where we were pushing Speedos as hard as we could, including getting them on the vital Chinese equivalent to Amazon to make sure they could be sold. I am very happy to make such a visit; this is part of the economic success story and export success story of our country.
Dame Tessa Jowell (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
On Monday, I am going to the United Nations to address a number of member states and to present a cross-party petition in support of the inclusion of the right to healthy early childhood in the new, post-2015 millennium development goals. The petition has been signed by people from 170 countries around the world. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister to support, with his advocacy and the support of his Government, this leadership by the United Nations to create benefit for at least 200 million of the world’s poorest children?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady and what she is doing in this area. Britain has tried to play a leading role in making sure that the world has a good replacement for the millennium development goals; I co-authored a report about what should be put in their place. At the heart of that was the idea of better maternal health and better health services, particularly for women in childbirth. I am very happy to look at the proposal she makes and make sure that we put the full weight of the British Government behind it.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Q10. Could I join my right hon. Friend in wishing the England football team every success in the World cup, but may I also raise one of the darker aspects of the beautiful game? Recently, my constituent Donald Distin was seriously assaulted by one of the players while refereeing a local football game and was very seriously injured. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure that violence is treated with equal seriousness whether it occurs on the field or off it and is never tolerated?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point: of course we all support the England football team—it is good to say that again—but it is really important that we crack down on all forms of bad behaviour, whether on or off the football pitch. Referees should have the full protection of the law to ensure that community football is safe and enjoyable. I pay tribute to the Football Association for all the work it has done on not only training but explaining the importance of respect and good behaviour in our game—but we need more of that in the years to come.
Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
I am afraid I might have nightmares this evening about the Prime Minister modelling Speedos on his world tour—I thank him for sharing that image with us. On a much more serious note, since this Prime Minister took office the number of people in Scotland alone reporting to have been forced into using loan sharks has increased by 57%—it is estimated that a total of 85,000 people in Scotland are in this predicament. What are his Government going to do about this? Or does he think it is acceptable?
The Prime Minister
First, let me reassure the hon. Lady that Speedo makes shorts as well as Speedos, so I hope I can clear that picture out of her mind. Hon. Members rightly raise a series of issues that we need properly to tackle to make sure that we help everyone in our country benefit from economic recovery. The minimum wage was declining when I became Prime Minister, but it is now increasing. Nothing was done under the last Government on zero-hours contracts, but now we have legislation to get rid of exclusivity. Nothing was done about payday lending in the last 13 years, but now it is being properly regulated, with a cap on payday lending. We have also made sure that the penalties for not paying the minimum wage have been quadrupled under this Government. I am absolutely determined to make sure that everyone who wants to work hard and do the right thing can benefit from the economic recovery now under way.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Q11. The Prime Minister must know that every Member of this House shares a total and collective repugnance that a young woman has been sentenced to 100 lashes and the death penalty for simply wanting to practise her faith. Will my right hon. Friend request that the UK delegation to the UN Human Rights Council press the case that the concept of apostasy is in direct and total conflict with article 18 of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, and will he reassure the House that the Sudanese Government will be left in no doubt of the abhorrence with which this sentence is held?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend speaks for the whole House on that issue. I completely share his abhorrence at the way in which this case has been treated; it has been absolutely barbaric, and it has no place in this world. I can confirm that we will be raising this case at the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council. Sudan is firmly on the agenda at that council, and we should bring the full weight of everything that Britain can do to make it clear to that country that the way this woman is being treated is totally unacceptable.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Q12. It was good of the Prime Minister to wish the England team every success in the forthcoming World cup, but with his Cabinet split and his coalition fractured should he not be picking up the phone to Roy Hodgson and asking for some tips on team discipline?
The Prime Minister
I would not want to offer Roy too much advice. What I say about this Government is that we have had the same Chancellor for four years and we have record growth in our country; we have had the same Home Secretary for four years and we have had record falls in crime; and we have had the same Education Secretary and we have 250,000 fewer children in failing schools. If you have a strong team with a strong plan, stick with them, and keep on putting it in the back of the net.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister will have heard calls from all parts of this House for an independent inquiry on the Hillsborough model into organised child sexual abuse in this country. Can he truly be satisfied that current police investigations are sufficient for the public to have confidence that we are both willing and able to get to the truth?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I have looked carefully at the matter with ministerial colleagues, because we have a series of inquiries taking place into what happened in various hospitals, care homes and media organisations. It is important that the Government keep a clear view about how those are being co-ordinated and how the lessons are being learned. If there is a need for any more overarching process to be put in place, I am happy to look at it. At the moment, thanks to the Home Secretary and her colleagues, we have a proper view of what is happening in all those organisations.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Q13. Recent analysis has shown that Labour’s policy to allocate NHS funding based on health need actually reduced health inequalities by 85%. Why did the Government scrap it?
The Prime Minister
This Government have ensured that public health budgets are properly ring-fenced and that money has been delivered, according to need, to the various areas of the country. I think the only part of the country in which Labour policy is put in place is Wales, which has not hit a health target since about 1989. It is also where experts say people are dying because of the length of time they spend on waiting lists, so if the hon. Lady is concerned about Labour health policy, Cardiff would be a good place to start.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Q15. Youth unemployment in Harrogate and Knaresborough today stands at 50— that is not a percentage, but the total, and it is down 83% since 2010. That clearly reflects the 2 million new private sector jobs created since then. Will my right hon. Friend be building on that success by providing more opportunities and skills for the young people in our area through more traineeships and apprenticeships?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that even though 50 is a small number of young people to be unemployed in Harrogate, it is still 50 too many. Our ambition in the next Parliament should be to ensure that everybody has the chance either to go to university or to take on an apprenticeship and that we leave absolutely no one behind as they leave school and look for the stability and security that a future in work provides.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Q14. This Government said they were going to recruit 11,000 new reserves, to make up for the cuts to the Regular Army. In fact, what has happened, according to today’s National Audit Office report, is that the number has actually declined since 2012. Is the Prime Minister content to continue to preside over not only a debacle in passports, but this further example of his Government’s incompetence and, frankly, buck-passing?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid to tell the hon. Lady that what we inherited in defence was not only a £38 billion black hole, but a situation where the military reserves had been under-resourced and undervalued for years. We now have a five-year programme for building them up; that programme is under way and it is gathering pace. What we are going to see is the strongest possible professional Army, with all the best equipment it could have, and a very strong reserve force backing it up, making sure that we can meet all the obligations we set out in the strategic defence review.
New Member
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:
Robert Jenrick, for Newark.
Petition
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe in fighting to defend the NHS, believe in fighting to defend the NHS services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough, and oppose cuts inflicted by the Conservative-led government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that proposals to scrap GP services at Skelton Medical Centre should be abandoned; further that proposals to scrap GP services at Park End Medical Centre should also be abandoned; further that the Petitioners believe that South Tees clinical commissioning group’s plans to close East Cleveland Hospital’s and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injuries units is short-sighted given the £30 million deficit of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and further that the Petitioners condemn South Tees clinical commissioning group’s decision to close Skelton’s NHS walk-in centre.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage NHS England and South Tees clinical commissioning group to reverse plans to close Park End Medical Centre, Skelton Medical Centre, its NHS walk-in centre and East Cleveland and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injury units.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001357]
G7
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s G7 summit in Brussels.
This was a G7 rather than a G8 because of Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine. Right from the outset, the G7 nations have been united in support for Ukraine and its right to choose its own future, and we have sent a firm message that Russia’s actions have been totally at odds with the values of our group of democracies.
At the summit, we kept up the pressure on Russia. We agreed that the status quo is unacceptable and the continuing destabilisation of eastern Ukraine must stop. We insisted that Russia must recognise the legitimate election of President Poroshenko; it must stop arms crossing the border into Ukraine; and it must cease support for separatist groups. We agreed that wide-ranging economic sanctions should remain on the table if Russia did not follow this path of de-escalation, or if it launched a punitive trade war with Ukraine in response to Kiev proceeding with the trade aspects of its association agreement with the European Union.
I made those points directly to President Putin when I met him in Paris on the eve of the D-day commemorations. The inauguration of President Poroshenko has created a new opportunity for diplomacy to help to establish a proper relationship between Ukraine and Russia. I urged President Putin to ensure that this happens. It is welcome that he met President Poroshenko in Normandy and that Moscow and Kiev are now engaging each other again. It is important that we continue to do what we can to sustain the positive momentum. We also agreed to help Ukraine to achieve greater energy security by diversifying its supplies.
The G7 also continued the work we began last year at Lough Erne to deal with the cancer of corruption, with further agreements on what I call the three T’s of greater transparency, fairer taxes and freer trade. We made good progress in working towards common global standards of transparency in extractive industries, we agreed to push forwards with establishing new international rules to stop companies artificially shifting their profits across borders to avoid taxes and we agreed to make a concerted push on finalising bilateral trade deals as soon as possible. These included the EU-Canada and EU-Japan deals, but of course also the EU-US deal, which we launched at Lough Erne last summer. I believe this is one of the greatest opportunities to turbo-charge the global economy and could be worth up to £10 billion for Britain alone. With these agreements, the Lough Erne agenda on transparency, tax and trade has been hard-wired into these international summits for many years to come.
There was also a good discussion on climate change, where the recent announcements by the US make a potential agreement next year more achievable, and we should do what we can to make that happen.
In my bilateral meeting with President Obama, we discussed what I believe is the greatest threat to our security: how we counter extremism and the terrorist threat to our people at home and abroad. We agreed to intensify our efforts to address the threat of foreign fighters travelling to and from Syria, which is now the top destination in the world for jihadists. And here in Britain, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be introducing a new measure to enable prosecution of those who plan and train for terrorism abroad. In Libya, we are fulfilling our commitment to train the Libyan security forces, with the first tranche of recruits arriving in the United Kingdom yesterday. On Nigeria, we reaffirmed our commitment to support President Jonathan’s Government and the wider region in confronting the evil of Boko Haram. We continue to help address the tragedy of the abducted schoolgirls.
Finally, in all my recent meetings with European leaders and again at the summit in Sweden yesterday, there was discussion about the top jobs in Europe. I believe the European elections sent a clear message right across the continent. The European Union needs to change. It is vital that politicians across Europe respond to the concerns of their people. That means having institutions in Europe that understand the need for reform and it means having people at the head of these institutions who understand that if things go on as they have done, the European Union is not going to work properly for its citizens.
Quite apart from the entirely valid concerns about the proposed people in question, there is a fundamental point of principle on which we must not budge. As laid down in EU law, it is for the European Council to make its own nomination for President. This is the body that is made up of the elected leaders of the European nations, and it is not for the European Parliament to try to impose its will on the democratically elected leaders of 28 member states.
Prime Minister Reinfeldt, Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands, Chancellor Merkel and I also agreed on the work programme for the new Commission: completing the single market; energising trade deals; and making further progress on deregulation—a clear focus on jobs and growth. We also agreed the Commission must work together to address the abuse of free movement, so that people move across Europe for work but not for welfare. These were important agreements from like-minded European leaders who share my determination to deliver a reformed European Union.
Finally, amidst the various meetings of the last week I was able to attend the very special commemorations for the 70th anniversary of D-day in Normandy. Attending the vigil at Pegasus bridge—marking the moment the first glider touched down on French soil—was a fitting moment to reflect on the importance of our collective defence, something that will be at the heart of the NATO summit in Wales this September. But above all, it was a moment to remember the sheer bravery and sacrifice of all those who gave their lives for our future.
The veterans who made it to Normandy are quite simply some of the most remarkable people I have ever had the privilege and pleasure of meeting. I will never forget the conversations that I had that night and indeed the next day. Our gratitude for their service and sacrifice must never wane, and neither should our resolve to protect the peace that they fought for. I commend this statement to the House.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let me begin where the Prime Minister ended by paying tribute to the commemorations of the 70th anniversary of D-day that we attended last week. They were a reminder of the incredible bravery that tens of thousands of our servicemen and women who left our shores 70 years ago showed, risking their lives to fight for the freedom that we so often take for granted today. I echo the words of the Prime Minister: it was deeply moving to hear the stories from the Normandy veterans we met and to hear about the sheer courage they showed for our country on that day. Our job is to ensure that those memories and stories continue to be told so that future generations know about the service and sacrifice of those who went before us.
Before turning to the G7, let me also take this opportunity to echo the Prime Minister’s comments about the European Commission President. The message from the European elections was clear: we need reform in Europe, and we need people in top jobs in Europe willing and able to pursue that agenda. The appointment of a new Commission and President provides a vital opportunity to pursue the much-needed European reform that we need, and it must be seized, not squandered.
Turning to the G7, we welcome the G7’s commitment to open trade. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with EU leaders and President Obama on whether the TTIP—transatlantic trade and investment partnership —negotiations for the free trade agreement are on track and when they are likely to be completed? Can he specifically reassure the House—this point has been raised by a number of people—that there will be no impact on our public services, particularly the NHS?
On tax and transparency, the Government must ensure that the bold promises made at Lough Erne are not watered down. In particular, last year we welcomed the OECD work on tackling tax avoidance, and it was promised that developing countries would be part of that process. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that that will be the case going forward?
We support the conclusions on international development. In the spirit of consensus, any time the Prime Minister wants to bring forward the promised law to enshrine the 0.7% aid target, the Opposition would of course offer him our support. It was promised in the coalition agreement, but it seems to have mysteriously disappeared.
The agreement of a new international framework for tackling climate change is very important, and the talks in Paris will be key to that, as will making good on the promise made in Copenhagen on climate finance for developing countries. Can the Prime Minister inform the House how the UK’s preparations for playing a part in that are going and assure us that he is working to secure timely contributions from the other G7 members, because we have tended to be at the front of the pack on this, while others have been less so.
Finally, let me turn to Ukraine. First, following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, it was absolutely right for G7 countries to boycott this year’s G8 summit, which would have taken place in Sochi. The crisis has been the west’s most serious confrontation with Russia since the end of the cold war and there had to be consequences for Russia’s actions.
Secondly, we welcome the swearing in of President Poroshenko and his first act of offering talks with the Russian-speaking east. I join the Prime Minister in welcoming the initial engagement between President Putin and President Poroshenko. However, can the Prime Minister assure us that in his discussions with President Putin, and following the Ukrainian President’s commitment to signing an association agreement with the EU, there was an assurance that there will be no further Russian aggression in response to that action?
Thirdly, it is with growing concern that we see the volatile situation in eastern Ukraine continuing and rising violence in the south-east of the country. During the Prime Minister’s conversations at the summit, did he seek assurances from Russia that it will accelerate its withdrawal of troops from the border with Ukraine and stop the flow of weapons and pro-Russian insurgents into the country?
The G7 meeting was a demonstration of the unity of international action. It was right for the G7 to call for a de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine, the need to work towards a diplomatic solution and continuing to maintain the pressure on Russia. In taking that action, the Government have our full support.
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response, particularly what he said about D-day, which I think for both of us, and indeed for the Deputy Prime Minister, was an extremely moving occasion. When it comes to the principle that the European Council should decide who is the leader of the Commission and that it should not be determined by some electoral process in the European Parliament that many people did not take part in, I am very grateful for the fact that this is a common British position that is held by the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party. I also thank him for that. It is very important for others in Europe to know what an important issue of principle it is for all three parties.
On TTIP and the deal between the EU and the US, I can report that there have been five good meetings on progressing it. We are pushing very hard and trying to set some deadlines for the work. No specific deadline was agreed, but it was agreed at the G7 that further impetus needed to be given to the talks and, specifically, that domestic politicians needed to answer any specific questions or concerns from non-governmental organisations, or indeed public services, that can sometimes be raised and that do not always, when we look at the detail, bear up to examination. Perhaps I will do that with regard to the NHS and write to the right hon. Gentleman about that.
On tax and transparency, we want not only to make sure that countries sign up to the tax tool we have created so that we can see where profits are being earned—that is going very well, with a number of countries signing up—but to find the best way of sharing that information with developing countries so that they can make sure that they are not being ripped off by these companies.
On the 0.7% target, I would say that what matters more than legislation is doing it—actually showing the political will and making the arguments about protecting our promises to the poorest people in the world.
On climate change, the right hon. Gentleman is right that Britain and the EU can play a leading role in helping to achieve a deal. We need to make sure that the EU has the political will to get to the right position on this. That should happen in September, and there will be important discussions between now and then to make sure that it happens.
On Ukraine, the right hon. Gentleman asked about how we would respond to further aggression. The agreement at the G7 was, first, that the status quo in terms of aggression and destabilisation in eastern Ukraine is not acceptable. That has to be fixed, plus the fact that Russia must not respond to the trade elements of the agreement between Ukraine and the EU by taking unfair steps against Ukraine. If those things happen, that is how sanctions could be put back on the table.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the withdrawal of Russian troops and the issue of weapons. I said to President Putin that it was welcome that a number of troops had been withdrawn from the borders and that we wanted to see more of that happen, but crucially we have got to see action to stop weapons getting into eastern Ukraine, because it is noticeable that the so-called rebels have, for instance, very technical, high-tech weapons such as MANPADs—man-portable air defence systems—and it is hard to believe that they could be coming from anywhere else.
I hope that that answers the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. I think that in a lot of these areas there is a good measure of cross-party agreement.
Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)
In welcoming the full range of the Prime Minister’s statement, may I particularly congratulate him on showing how he was able to lock in so much of the success of the G8 at Lough Erne and on his references to the three T’s and Nigeria? Did he get any assurance that there is a continuing commitment that there should be no payments on kidnap for ransom, which was also a crucial element of his success at Lough Erne?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I raised it specifically at the G7 because I am very concerned that we signed the agreement at Lough Erne about not paying ransoms for terrorist kidnap, yet there are terrorist kidnaps taking place in our world and it is—how can I put it politely?—far from clear that some countries are not allowing, or even enabling, ransoms to be paid: ransoms that then go into the hands of very dangerous terrorist groups and fund weapons and explosives that could well be used in our countries back home. I raised this issue very forcefully, as did President Obama. It is very important that we do all we can to help to release those who are held, but paying ransoms for terrorist kidnaps is totally self-defeating—it makes the terrorists stronger and increases the chances of further kidnaps in future.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
May I first endorse what the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about the presidency of the EU? I remind the House that it is not long since the German press themselves were very heavily critical of Mr Juncker for “running a tax haven” and, indeed, for his behaviour on some late evenings. OECD projections suggest that in 11 years the BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India and China—might overtake the G7 in terms of aggregate GDP, and we are already seeing a parting of the ways in terms of international cohesion. How far are the strategic implications of that change in economic power being considered by the G7?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The reason I believe the G7 is going to have continued relevance in the years ahead is that it is a chance for some of the world’s biggest democracies, and largest economies, who are like-minded to have a very frank and open conversation. It is much less about communiqués and reading out speeches and more about a discussion about how we approach really complicated and difficult issues, whether it is the rise of Islamist extremism or how to make sure that our relations with China work in our mutual interest, and so on. I hope that we can keep going with these meetings. The G20 is able to address the broader world economy and to bring together the BRIC countries with some of the older western democracies.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
My main objection to the nomination of Mr Juncker is that it is a stitch-up and a power grab by the European Parliament, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to have no part of it.
In Syria, against a backdrop of indiscriminate killing, delays in removing chemical stockpiles, contempt for UN resolution 2118, and the ongoing use of chemicals such as chlorine, the United States is now arming the rebels. Is it not time that we reconsidered our position on this?
The Prime Minister
First, on Syria, I think we are doing the right thing, which is that we are working with the legitimate opposition—we are giving them support and giving them help, but we draw up short of lethal equipment. But there is plenty we can do to help, to train, to advise and to assist, alongside the Americans, that will make a difference and bolster those voices of democracy and freedom for the Syrian people.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the so-called power grab. It is the principle we should be focused on, because the rules are clear. Through the European Council, the nation states of Europe, democratically elected, come together and propose someone to head the Commission. That is how it is meant to work. If we were not to oppose what is happening, we would be accepting for ever in future that there was going to be some sort of elected president of the European Commission, even though many countries would not be taking part in that election. It is interesting that the European People’s party stood in Britain and—I checked the figures—got 0.18% of the vote. [Interruption.] I heard that—steady on! That is not a mandate. So it is a very important principle that Britain continues its opposition.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will have agreed with President Obama’s comments when he said that he thought the UK worked “pretty well” and hoped that his ally would remain effective, robust and united. Is not the G7 a perfect example of the fact that when we—that is, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—work together we all benefit from being at the top table and discussing the most important issues facing the world as we move forward?
The Prime Minister
I think that the hon. Gentleman speaks for many in this House by making that point. Britain is fortunate that we are a member of so many important international organisations. Whether it is the permanent seat at the UN Security Council, the EU, NATO, the G7, the G20 or the Commonwealth, we are able to use these forums to make our points on behalf of the whole United Kingdom and to stand up for the whole United Kingdom when doing so. Being part of these organisations increases our influence in the world, and increases Scotland’s influence in the world.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the whole House must remain firm in its message to President Putin that Russia’s actions are completely unacceptable and totally against the values of democracy and the principles of international law?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. What Russia has done is wrong—wrong in respect of the bogus referendum in Crimea and wrong in respect of the support that has been given to groups in eastern Ukraine. The only thing that it will respect is a very clear, very firm and very predictable response from the EU and the US. What has been noticeable is that while a lot of people have thought there would be great divisions opening up between the United States and the countries of the European Union, we have actually, I think, delivered a fairly joined-up and clear response to what is unacceptable.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
On the three T’s of tax, transparency and trade, what leadership is the Prime Minister giving and what progress has been made on establishing public registers of beneficial ownership in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted to be able to do that. The first thing was our putting the whole issue on the agenda at last year’s G8 and getting countries to sign up to the Lough Erne declaration, which specifically talked about registers of beneficial ownership. The second thing was our announcement in the Queen’s Speech of a world first, I think, in publishing, here in the United Kingdom, the open register of beneficial ownership. As for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, we should commend them for the work that they have done to bring their arrangements up to date. I had this conversation with them almost exactly this time last year before the trooping of the colour. They have made huge steps forward, and we should commend them for that and encourage them to go further.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for having a discussion with President Obama about the serious terrorism threat posed by Boko Haram in north-east Nigeria. Does he agree that the tragedy of the kidnapped girls should be resolved and that the front-line states of the United States, France and ourselves should co-operate further, because the terrorism threat to Nigeria threatens the whole stability and economy of that most important economy in Africa?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to give the issue further attention. At the G8 last year, we talked about encouraging leading countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Britain to partner up with nations and their security forces to try to strengthen their work in combating extremism. That is more urgent than ever, and there is a real opportunity at the NATO summit to put more flesh on the bones of that idea. As we do so, and as President Obama said in his West Point speech, we should not think that the only answer is a security and military one; we should be thinking about aid, development, advice and all the other things we can do to help the country.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
Like the Prime Minister, I had the great privilege to be invited to attend the D-day celebrations in Normandy. It made me reflect on the dangers of sitting on our hands when another country is re-arming and acting aggressively. In the past five years, Russia has increased its defence spending by more than 10% a year in real terms, while defence expenditure has been reduced in Europe by an average of 10% over the same period. The UK has cut its defence spending by 18% in real terms. Does the Prime Minister think that now is the time to reconsider those cuts, stop them and start rebuilding our defence forces?
The Prime Minister
On the figures, this Government effectively froze defence spending in cash terms, which was an 8% real-terms cut. We are, of course, still meeting the 2% that NATO countries are meant to meet, and we are virtually the only country in Europe that is doing so, so I think we are in a strong position to say to others that they should do more.
Where I would perhaps part company with the hon. Gentleman is on the fact that our changes are about making sure that we have effective and deployable armed forces. Some countries might maintain spending or current patterns, but they do not actually have deployable armed forces for the things that are needed. That is what we need to get countries to focus on as they come to the NATO summit.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
May I echo the Prime Minister’s appropriate words about D-day? It is very welcome that President Poroshenko has committed to normalised relations with Russia and that Russia, in turn, has recognised his legitimacy as President of Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that the European Union does not slip into complacency over Ukraine and that other, alternative options, such as the alternative long-term energy strategy, should still be pursued with vigour?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right. Europe has to do two things. First, it must make sure that the trade relationship with Ukraine works properly, that the implications are discussed with Russia and that a successful Ukrainian economy develops. The second and far more long-term issue is the changes to our energy markets in the European Union. We really have to set out a work programme for more investment in liquefied natural gas terminals, more reverse flows between different countries and more action on shale gas, which is an important natural resource that we ought to be making the most of. Europe will rue the day if it just puts out communiqués and talks about these things, rather than actually doing them.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The humanitarian situation in Iraq is a calamity. What can the international community do to help the more than 500,000 people who have just fled Mosul? The Prime Minister, like David Miliband, voted in favour of the Iraq war. This morning, Mr Miliband said that if he had known then what he knows now, he would not have voted in favour of invading Iraq. Given what the Prime Minister knows now, would he again vote to invade Iraq?
The Prime Minister
I have always made the point that I do not particularly see the point of going back over these issues. I voted and acted as I did, and I do not see the point of going over the history books. What we have to deal with now is the situation today. There is an extremely serious situation in Mosul. I agree with the United States that the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Iraq and the region needs a strong and co-ordinated response. It needs Prime Minister Maliki to pursue inclusive policies that can unite his country, but it will also require a security response from the Iraqis. At the same time, as a generous country that supports humanitarian aid, we should look at what we can do for those people who are displaced.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Although it is obviously desirable that the Germans seek an alternative nomination for President of the EU Commission, it is not entirely essential should Italy perhaps join Britain, Sweden, Holland and the Czech Republic. May I urge my right hon. Friend to seek wider support across Europe, including Italy, to try to back our position? As someone who wants to stay in the European Union, I think it is vital that Europe demonstrates that it gets the message of what the people want and picks a new, forward-looking generation of Commission.
The Prime Minister
I am certainly doing everything I can to make a series of points, including that we need reform in Europe, which means a particular programme of reform, and people who are capable of carrying it out. I also keep coming back to an important point of principle: if Britain were to give way on this issue and say that we accepted it, we would effectively be saying that we accepted a change to the whole way in which Europe worked for ever into the future. I sometimes find it frustrating that many other European leaders agree with me completely about the need for reform and for people who can carry it through; we need to make sure that everybody works together to get the right outcome, but I am absolutely clear that this is a point of principle and one on which we should not budge.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister referred to Syria. Was there any discussion with the other leaders about the terrorist threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, both in Syria and in Iraq? This morning, there were reports of the imminent capture of the main oilfield, as well as of the events in Mosul. Does not that prove that the John Major and Labour Governments were right to give support to the Kurds to establish their autonomy and the protection and stability that exists in at least one part of Iraq at this time?
The Prime Minister
First, there was a discussion about the current state of Syria and there was also, as I have said, a discussion, including my bilateral with President Obama, about the specific ISIL threat in Syria and Iraq. The threat is being played out in terms of terrorist kidnap and terrorist training. British people are going to Syria and being trained, with the risk that they will come back here or to other parts of Europe and carry out terrorist offences, so it is one of the most serious security challenges that we face.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the Kurds, but I also agree that there is no option for an international-facing, open-trading nation such as Britain to turn away from the world and say we will not have anything to do with these problems because they are all too difficult or complicated. Those problems will come back and bite us unless we act with allies not only to make ourselves secure here at home, but to try to help to deliver security there as well.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Media reports indicate that Russia is being given one month to disengage from eastern Ukraine before facing further sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that, and, more particularly, what steps does he want to see taken within that month?
The Prime Minister
The way I would put it is that the clear view of the G7 was that the status quo of the flow of arms and people across the border and the support being given to separatist groups is unacceptable and those things need to change. We also need a responsible response from Russia to the free trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU. Both of those things need to happen for further sanction actions to be comprehensively avoided.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Prime Minister recognise that the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership agreement is deeply controversial, because essentially it allows private companies to sue democratic Governments? Given that sovereignty is an issue that the Prime Minister is obviously very fond of, will he explain why he is so relaxed about the potential very serious loss of sovereignty if TTIP goes ahead?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right that this is a contentious and difficult issue, but I do not believe that it is one that cannot be solved through negotiation. After all, these sorts of issues come up in every bilateral trade deal. If we are going to get the full advantage of these trade deals, so that they include services and financial services as well as goods, we have to address those problems. If we made trade deals simply about reducing tariff barriers, most of that work has already been done though international agreements, so we have to do the difficult things to get the full benefit.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
As usual, the Prime Minister speaks with absolute sense on Europe, but if—despite his efforts—the next President of the European Commission is a federalist who wants even closer union, will we be one step closer to the Prime Minister leading the out campaign in 2017?
The Prime Minister
As I said in Sweden yesterday, obviously it will be easier to persuade people to stay in a reformed European Union if we can demonstrate that reforms are being put in place. Where my hon. Friend and I perhaps part company a little bit is that I think we have seen some good steps forward in recent years. We have cut the EU budget, so this organisation has to focus and do less—that is a positive thing. We have brought in deregulation, so it has to start taking away European laws, rather than adding them—that is a good thing. But given the results of the European elections, we now need to take that further and achieve more full-throated reform. Obviously, the more of that we can have, the easier the task those of us who want Britain to stay in a reformed European Union will have.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, and no doubt many of the Prime Minister’s, are very worried about the possible impact of TTIP on public services. I heard what the Prime Minister said about the meetings taking place, but there is no timetable yet. Will he assure me that the impact on the NHS is at the forefront of his discussions?
The Prime Minister
As I said to the Leader of the Opposition, I will write a letter to him—[Interruption.] No, I am sure that I have written to him about something before, if only to wish him a very happy birthday or something like that. I do think this is important because all of us in the House feel—I would say instinctively—that free trade agreements will help to boost growth, but we are all going to get a lot of letters from non-governmental organisations and others who have misgivings about particular parts of a free trade agreement. It is really important that we try to address these in detail, and I would rather do that than give an answer across the Dispatch Box.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
This summit should of course have been of the G8, not the G7. Do not events from Ukraine to Mosul show that we have entered a new chapter of instability at the very time when we are ever more dependent on overseas trade and resources, and does it not therefore make sense to bring forward the decision on the second aircraft carrier as a statement of maritime strength, intent and preparedness?
The Prime Minister
That was an ingenious way of levering in a question on an aircraft carrier into a statement on the G7. The best thing is that the first aircraft carrier is soon to be launched—that will be a very exciting moment for the United Kingdom including, indeed, for Scotland—and, obviously, we can take into consideration how to handle the second carrier closer to the time.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister must be concerned about the continuing remilitarisation of central Europe both by Russia and by NATO. Does he not think that we should pause for a moment and question the role of NATO and its continuous expansion eastwards, and start to put limits on what NATO does and what its ambitions are, as a way of de-escalating this crisis and demilitarising that region to avoid future conflict?
The Prime Minister
I cannot see any sort of point in trying to draw some moral equivalence between Russia’s totally unacceptable action with respect to Ukraine and the fact that NATO, as a defensive legal alliance, has sent extra forces to the Baltic states or indeed Poland to demonstrate our belief in collective defence. If we do what the hon. Gentleman has just said in his question, we would actually let Russia off the hook for everything that it wanted to do anywhere, and that is a terrible basis on which to conduct foreign and security policy.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his tribute to the inspiring sacrifice of our forebears who gave their tomorrows for the freedoms that we enjoy. I particularly support the PM in his insistence that the EU Commission and President must support the case for reform. Is it not the case that Europe and the UK’s diplomatic and military strength is fundamentally linked to our economic strength and that we need to become more flexible, more entrepreneurial and more outward looking?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will only count for something in the world if we can demonstrate that our model of democracy and open markets can deliver a strong and growing economy, and stability and security. I agree of course with what he says about the top jobs, but we should beware that I am sure all the candidates will suddenly make absolutely loving declarations about deregulation, the importance of growth and the importance of jobs, and they will even use great words such as “subsidiarity”. The point that I would make to everyone on both sides of the House is that we should not get too excited about these declarations; we have to focus on the principle that it is very important that the European Council keeps its right to suggest who should run the European Commission. That is at the heart of our argument.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
In Prime Minister’s questions on 30 April, I raised the cases of Princesses Sahar and Jawaher, who are being starved by the Saudi regime. Since then, I have received a letter from the Foreign Office saying that it is a matter for the Saudi Arabian authorities and the family concerned. The Government are willing to take up human rights issues in relation to other countries; why are we not willing to take up cases in relation to Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
We do take up human rights cases when it comes to Saudi Arabia. When the hon. Lady raised this matter in April, I explained that we give proper priority to human rights and the rule of law, and we raise those issues with all countries, including Saudi Arabia. Our expectation of all states is that they uphold their international human rights obligations.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I was really pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s continued commitment to finding a workable solution for Syria. Does he agree that there is more we can do in our own country to prosecute the people involved in the training and planning of terrorism abroad, including in Syria?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that we need to keep examining our own legal situation to make sure that where wrongdoing is being planned, we can prosecute. That is why I mentioned in my statement the change we are making through one of the Bills in the Queen’s Speech to ensure that we properly prosecute the planning of terrorist acts. This is now going to take far more resource by the intelligence and security services, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street, and this is now really one of the biggest security challenges that we face—as big now, I am told, as the problem of terrorism coming from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region—so we need to make sure that the whole Government are focused on it.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Prime Minister for his continued commitment to Nigeria. Last week, I met the Metropolitan police Nigerian police forum. There are now nearly 900 officers of Nigerian origin just in the Met alone. They are very keen to go and work with the police in Nigeria to try to tackle the human rights abuses that they perpetrate as well as the other challenges there. Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government should look into this and should tap the wonderful resource we have in human rights policing in the UK?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. There is expertise in how to police in a way that properly recognises human rights, and how to have other security and intelligence forces that do the same thing. Frankly, that has been one of our problems in relation to doing more with the Nigerians. She makes an excellent suggestion, and it is something that this Government are certainly keen to do.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
On the issue of freedom of movement, does the Prime Minister accept that many millions of Britons are extremely unhappy that citizens of the other 27 European Union states enjoy rights of access to this country that are denied to the rest of the world, and that unless this preferential treatment is removed, they will conclude that the only way to resolve the problem is for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union?
The Prime Minister
What people want to know is that we have in place a robust set of border and immigration controls that is in our national interest. When we came to office, people wanted to see robust action to deal with bogus colleges, economic migrants from outside the EU who are often unskilled, and those often using the route of family reunion to bring in people who did not really have a proper right to be here. We have shut that down and sorted out those issues. We now need to demonstrate that the right of free movement is not an unqualified right. That is why it is very important to look at future transitional controls for new countries that join the EU. It is also important to look at benefit tourism and welfare tourism, and see what else can be done to reassure the public that we take our responsibilities for border and immigration control extremely seriously.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for what he has said about Nigeria and the issue of tackling extremism more generally. He said in his statement:
“We continue to help address the tragedy of the abducted schoolgirls.”
Given the depth of interest in this country in that issue and the revelations just yesterday about more abductions, will the Prime Minister update us on where this particular action now lies and on what is happening?
The Prime Minister
What I would say is that the British and Americans, principally, have put in some resources and help to Nigerian military and security forces—teams that can help them with their work. But we must be frank and say that this is not something we can lead or initiate ourselves; it has to be Nigerian-led and Nigerian-owned, and they will be thinking very carefully about what steps they can take. We have to be there to help and to advise, but we cannot take this over or lead it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I, too, urge the Prime Minister to continue his objection to Mr Juncker, who is, by nature, a federalist. What we want is a President of the Commission who will repatriate powers to Britain and other countries across Europe. Many people across Europe—not just in Britain—voted for more national control, not more control from Brussels and Strasbourg, which is what Mr Juncker would deliver.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes some very good points. All I would add is that there are many good candidates on the left, right and centre of European politics who could play a role in the top jobs. Of course, there is not only the President of the Commission, but the President of the Council, the President of the European Parliament and the High Representative who speaks on foreign affairs. There are many good people who could do those jobs.
Let me make an additional point, and I absolutely promise that this is not a job application. Were we to follow the proposal that the Parliament should somehow choose the top candidates, as has happened in this election, we would shut off for ever the idea that we could find a serving Prime Minister, President or even Foreign Minister to run the European Commission. That would be a terrible step for Europe to take, because we need the widest possible pool of talent so that we can find people to do the things that my hon. Friend has suggested.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am sure that we are all reassured by the Prime Minister’s kind offer to write to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the TTIP. I urge him to go further and to commit today to using future G7 gatherings to convince his fellow EU leaders and President Obama of the case for safeguarding our national health service from the impact of the TTIP.
The Prime Minister
I do not believe that our national health service is under threat in the way that the hon. Gentleman says. There are many parts of international co-operation and trade from which our national health service can be a huge beneficiary. For instance, we lead the world in sequencing people’s DNA and building up a vast databank, so that is a huge opportunity, and some of the leaders of our best hospitals are talking to new cities that are being built in China about how to establish health services. We should not be frightened of our NHS being a great British success story, parts of which can be exported to the rest of the world. We need to ensure that the TTIP and other such things make that possible.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
We have all seen that Russia uses her vast energy reserves as the provisional wing of her diplomatic policy. The Prime Minister is quite right to suggest that Europe needs to diversify its energy supply as a consequence. Will he encourage greater supply of gas and oil from the south Caucasus and, in particular, the extension of the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli deal in Azerbaijan? That would help the economy of Europe and the development of civic society in Azerbaijan, the all-party parliamentary group on which I chair.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to look at some of the energy proposals, such as piping gas directly from places such as Azerbaijan to southern Europe, so that it does not have to go through Russian pipelines, alongside the other things that I have mentioned. The key point is that unless those specific actions are taken, a lot of European countries will remain over-reliant on Russian gas. In Hungary and one or two other countries, a very high percentage of the gas comes directly from Russia. It will always be difficult for those countries to be part of a more unified approach in standing up to Russia on those or any other issues.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has rightly stressed the importance of the G7 behaving in a predictable manner. However, last week, under the heading “British troops in show of force on Russian border”, The Times reported that
“Ukraine…is regarded as a NATO partner.”
Surely such statements are a recipe for confusion, instability and miscalculation. The benefits and obligations of NATO membership are clear. We cannot have a penumbra of semi-NATO members. Please will the Prime Minister clarify the situation?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear that our obligations relate to other members of the NATO alliance. Of course, that includes the Baltic states and Poland. I will apologise to nobody for sending additional British help to those countries for things such as air defence to reassure them at this time, because they contribute to the NATO alliance, they have Russian minorities, they are extremely worried by what they have seen happening in Ukraine and they want to know that NATO means something. I am happy to say that it does.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
On Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that the agenda for the work programme on growth, jobs and reform has to come before the choice of which candidate will be European Commission President? The agreed agenda needs to be clear about the imperative for reform in the EU, because there is a broad consensus that what we need is real change in Europe, not simply more of the same.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Angela Merkel and I have been working very closely on that, because we should be using this moment, when Europe is considering who should be the next Commission President, to be very clear about what we want the Commission to do. If the European Council lays out a work programme that includes things such as trade deals, deregulation and reform and dealing with the abuse of freedom of movement, it will be much easier to say to whoever runs the Commission in the future, “This is the platform that we agreed on. Will you please stop interfering so much in the affairs of nation states and concentrate on the things that need to be fixed?”
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
The G7 communiqué rightly stressed the importance of genuinely sustainable development. A key part of that is development assistance. Although it is really welcome that we are achieving the 0.7% target, should we take it from what the Prime Minister said that it is a forlorn hope that it will be enshrined in legislation, or would he support such a Bill if it came forward?
The Prime Minister
I support meeting our pledge to the poorest people in the world, which is that we will achieve the 0.7% target. We have done that and we should go on doing it. I am very clear about that. On the G7/G8, what matters is having a proper accountability report so that everyone can see who has kept their promises and who has not. It is quite important that at the next G7, which will be held in Germany, we have a very clear list of who has done what. I am confident that, if I am still Prime Minister at that time, we will still be meeting our promises.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that, whether it is at home in Birmingham or abroad in Nigeria, it behoves all Members of this House to unite to tackle Islamic extremism, wherever it occurs and whatever form it takes?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. That is what the extremism taskforce, which I set up, is all about. We have a problem not with Islam, which is a religion of peace and one of the great world religions, but with a minority of Islamist extremists, who have a completely unacceptable world view. We need to deal with that on our campuses and in our colleges, our prisons, our schools and elsewhere. The extremism taskforce brings together the whole Government to ensure that we sweep away these problems in all those areas of our life.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
What discussions were there at the G7 on the post-2015 development framework? Will the UK Government give a commitment that they will ensure that tackling extreme economic inequality will be one of the commitments in that framework?
The Prime Minister
There was a discussion about development. We agreed that the G7 next year in Germany should have a particular focus on what will replace the millennium development goals. The work that Britain did on those has been greatly welcomed. The hon. Gentleman used the words “extreme…inequality”. I think it is important that at the heart of the goals we have a vision of eradicating extreme poverty. That has to come before issues of inequality. Inequality is an important consideration, but we should not take our eyes off the prize, which is abolishing the idea that people should be living on less than a few dollars a day in our world. That should be the key focus.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
The fact that the EU single market in services remains incomplete after so many years represents one of the biggest failings of the EU, but also one of the greatest opportunities. Does the Prime Minister detect a real sense of change from his discussions with other leaders, including at this summit, and does he agree that reform at the top of the European Commission will ultimately drive the completion of that vital market?
The Prime Minister
To answer my hon. Friend very directly, I do sense a change. When it comes to the single market in services, it is not always the newer and relatively poorer countries that are the problem; sometimes, it is the richer, longer-standing members that have rules on lawyers, architects, doctors, pharmacists and so on that go against the single market. I sense that people realise that we cannot go on talking about this issue and that things have to be done. That will not happen unless we have a reform-minded head of the Commission.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s words on climate change, but he will know that there was considerable disappointment that not one G7 member managed to send a Minister to the Bonn United Nations framework convention on climate change meeting last week. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to attend the Ban Ki-moon summit later in the year?
The Prime Minister
I will be looking carefully at this. Obviously, we have the NATO summit and there are party conferences, the dates of which have been rather shuffled around this year because of the absolutely vital Scottish referendum. I will make sure that either I go or we send very senior ministerial representation because I think that it will be an important meeting. The key role for Britain is to make sure that the EU as a whole puts its best foot forward by agreeing a good deal in September.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s and the G7’s tough stance on Russia’s unacceptable actions in Ukraine. With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the G7 discussed the strategic implications of Russia’s recent deal on gas with China?
The Prime Minister
We did discuss the recent deal. It is interesting that the Russians felt it necessary to do this deal, and perhaps at a price not quite as attractive as they might have hoped. It underlines the importance of energy policy to Russia, so the correct European response is to make ourselves more independent and less reliant on Russian gas. That is doable. Britain has very little reliance on Russian gas—just a few per cent.—but we need to help other European countries make sure that they can have a similarly open and competitive market.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s answers to the Leader of the Opposition and others about the TTIP and its potential effect on the NHS seem to be that if he just explains it better, all will be fine. Many people do not want to wait until somebody makes a legal challenge at some point in the future, and it is too late to do anything about it. Would it not be easier to craft an exemption for the domestic operations of organisations such as the NHS so that we do not have to face that risk?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps I will include the hon. Lady on the mailing list for the letter that I am going to write. Having looked briefly at this issue, my understanding is that the NHS is not at risk, but I understand that people believe it could be, so we need to set out why we do not think that that is the case and what the negotiations will consist of. We must ensure that hon. Members who want to support the TTIP have good answers to give the NGOs. Although some NGOs talk a good game on trade and its importance, when it comes to the crunch they often take quite an anti-trade position. I think that they are on the wrong side of history on this because trade has been a great way to lift people out of poverty, but I am happy to address these issues as fully as I can.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
When our all-party parliamentary group visited Brussels to support the TTIP, we found there was not one representative of small business on the advisory council that was looking at the deal. I thank the Prime Minister for his support of the TTIP and urge him to make the case that its benefits will be for our smallest businesses throughout Britain and the EU.
The Prime Minister
It is very important that we listen to the voice of small business as we go about this. Sometimes these issues can be dominated by the big lobbies and it is important that we let small business speak clearly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister referred to energy security, which businesses, particularly those in light industry in Feltham and Heston, have raised with me. Will the Prime Minister confirm whether the UK, in line with other G7 nations, has started its energy security assessment? If so, when will the findings be made public?
The Prime Minister
We address energy security all the time through the national security strategy and the National Security Council. It is one of our considerations. Perhaps I could let the hon. Lady know about the specific issue that she raised.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On Iraq, does the Prime Minister agree that the near breakdown of governance is down to Prime Minister Maliki’s failure to form an inclusive Government rather than a sectarian Government, which is now leading to weapons that have been given to the Iraqi army ending up in sectarian and extremist hands in Syria?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Iraq has always faced the challenge of having Sunni, Shi’a and Kurdish populations. It requires politics and a political leader who can bring them together and make sure that everyone feels part of the whole. That has not always been the case with Maliki’s Government. It needs to be; otherwise, we will see more breakdowns such as the one that has happened in the last 24 hours.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment especially to the new measure to enable prosecution of those who train for terrorism abroad. Dissident republicans have sourced explosives and weapons from terrorists in the middle east and they have also been trained in certain parts of the world, including the middle east. What actions will the Prime Minister, the Government and the G7 take to address this issue, given that there are pockets of support across the Republic of Ireland for dissident republicans?
The Prime Minister
First, let me make it absolutely clear that laws that we pass in this House to combat terrorism apply to dissident republicans or people on the other side of the divide who take up arms for terror, just as they apply to anybody else. The actions that we are taking to try to stop the leakage of weapons, explosives and techniques from these broken countries into the UK apply just as much to the problems that we could have in Northern Ireland as to those that could occur anywhere else.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
I was privileged to observe the elections in Ukraine and I saw people queuing for two and a half hours outside polling stations. That underlined to me the importance that they accorded to the elections. There is no doubt that Mr Putin is fomenting violence in eastern Ukraine, and a cynic might say that that was to take attention away from Crimea. What conversations did the Prime Minister have specifically about Crimea? Are we still adamant that we will hold Russia to account for what was an illegal action in anybody’s terms?
The Prime Minister
The British Government’s view, like that of the rest of the EU, the G7 and America, is that what happened in Crimea is illegal and wrong. One cannot individually and unilaterally redraw the boundaries of a nation state, and that needs to be properly addressed. As for my hon. Friend’s other remarks about ensuring that we stand up strongly for the Ukrainian people’s right to choose their future, I absolutely agree.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for first putting and then keeping tax transparency at the heart of the G7/G8 agenda. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee will soon conclude an inquiry into UK extractive industries and our position around the world. May I urge the Prime Minister to stress that it is in the interests of international NGOs based in this country and those of the UK’s extractive industries for the UK to keep playing a leading role on transparency?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not only in our interests because we want a world where we do not have poor countries exploited by individuals or companies with corrupt payments, and it all being done in a totally shady and underhand way; it is also in our interests, as a country whose companies do not behave like that, to try to raise the level of every country and every company in the world. It is absolutely the right agenda and we should keep at it.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about new trade deals. Does he agree that they are a vital way of backing British business and of creating more secure manufacturing jobs in Britain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. There are always sceptics about these deals, but the good thing about the current situation is that we can point to things such as the EU-Korea free trade deal, which has led to big benefits for the European Union and for Britain, and say that more deals like that mean more jobs, more exports and more wealth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. Particularly when we are dealing with countries such as Korea and Japan, which have not always had high tariff barriers, but have had several ways of trying to keep their markets locked up, if we can open up those markets, there are real opportunities for Britain.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Having served in Operation Warden, the no-fly zone over northern Iraq in the 1990s, I join many colleagues in having deep concerns about the deteriorating security situation in northern Iraq. A constituent who is working there as an engineer contacted me last night, and dozens of Kurdish students attend my local Huddersfield university. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the relative peace that there has been in the Kurdistan region for the past couple of decades and do all he can to ensure that that stability is spread to this troubled part of the world?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the relative stability of the Kurdish part of Iraq. As we have said, we need an Iraqi Prime Minister who leads an inclusive Government, bringing together Sunni, Shi’a and Kurd for the future benefit of that country. There is no reason why Iraq cannot be a success story. It has the mineral and oil wealth and it needs to ensure that that wealth is properly put to the use of everyone in the country.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
However deeply flawed and imperfect the referendum in Crimea was, it is clear to all that a majority of Crimeans want to be part of Russia and not Ukraine. In his discussions with the new Ukrainian President, was it made clear to the Prime Minister how the Ukrainians see the situation being resolved? Do they want Crimea back, or what other solution are they offering?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the President of Ukraine wants the territorial integrity of his country to be respected. My hon. Friend might be right that, over time, it will be found that a majority of people in Crimea want to be part of Russia, or independent or whatever, but it must be for the Ukrainian Government, under the Ukrainian constitution, to set out how that should go ahead. It is rather like we have done by giving people in Scotland the right to choose their future—as I say, I hope they stick with the United Kingdom. That is the way things should happen, not an independent, artificial, unilateral move by Russia and holding a referendum when there were not even proper registers of electors.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Remaining with trade, global markets are becoming ever more competitive as newer economies develop. Does the Prime Minister agree that despite the remarks of the Labour party, it is important to get on and achieve an early and successful outcome at the TTIP talks?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. There are always concerns from people who see free trade as a zero-sum game: there must be a loser, there must be a winner, and somehow there will be a hollowing out of middle-class, middle-income jobs in our world. I do not believe that is the case. Britain has a lot of goods and services that the world wants to buy, and arguably a lot of those—particularly things such as intellectual property, patent protected services, and financial, banking and insurance services—require a greater opening of other markets to get in there, perhaps more so than just manufacturing and selling a particular good. It is really important for our whole future and prosperity that those deals go ahead.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister will know that manufacturing output, which he has just been talking about, is up 4.5% this month on the same time last year. He may not know, however, that the west midlands is the only region in the United Kingdom—and one of very few regions in Europe—that has a balance of payments surplus with China. My question follows that of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) on the BRIC countries: what discussions did the Prime Minister have at the G7 to ensure that there will not be dumping of manufactured products from those countries, and that we continue to see long-term economic success?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and at rather too great a length I am afraid.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if we look at where exports are growing fastest in the United Kingdom, it is not the City of London or the south-east—the west midlands is leading the way. Of course we must have proper rules on dumping, but we sometimes find people using accusations of dumping to oppose the loosening of trade, and I do not think we should see that. The manufactured goods being exported from the west midlands—things such as Jaguar Land Rover cars—are exported on the basis of quality. People want to buy those cars, and the faster we can open up markets and try to fight protectionism in countries such as Brazil or some of the other BRICs, the better for all concerned.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Prime Minister and colleagues.
Nominations for candidates for the post of Chair of the Backbench Business Committee closed at 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon. Only one nomination was received, and therefore a ballot will not take place. I congratulate Natascha Engel on her re-election as Chair of the Committee.
I remind Members that the book for entering the private Member’s Bill ballot is open for Members to sign in the No Lobby. It will be open until the House rises today, except during any Division.
Debate on the Address
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Jobs and Work
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 247 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected amendment (b) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, at the end of the Question to add:
“but regret that the measures in the Gracious Speech fail to ensure that those who put in a hard day’s work get a decent reward for doing so, or cut the costs to the social security system resulting from the current record 5.2 million workers on low pay and the rising tide of insecurity at work; and call on your Government to bring forward measures setting the Low Pay Commission a five year target to raise the National Minimum Wage faster than average earnings while retaining the capacity to take account of shocks to the economy.”.
We are here to debate the Queen’s Speech, and in particular its impact on jobs and work. Ultimately, to create jobs and work so that someone can raise a family we need sustainable and balanced growth. We cannot legislate our way to sustainable and balanced growth, but a Queen’s Speech and the proposed legislation therein has a role to play. Essentially, today we are debating the economic policies of this Government.
Mr Umunna
Just one moment. I will give way in a bit.
When I first arrived in this House—together with the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), I think—I remember that all Government Members wanted to do was talk about the previous Government. This is now their fourth Queen’s Speech and fifth year in office, and it simply will not do to drone on about the last lot. They are in government; they have a record and we will hold them to account for it.
When this Government entered office the country was recovering from a recession that was caused by a global financial crash and precipitated by irresponsible behaviour in the banking sector. When they took office, a recovery was under way, unemployment was falling, growth was rising and stability was beginning to settle in. Those are the facts. However, the extreme fiscal consolidation that they attempted to embark on choked off growth for the best part of three years, causing the Business Secretary, the Work and Pensions Secretary and their ministerial colleagues to fail completely to meet their deficit reduction targets. That led to a huge amount of misery for the British people as unemployment soared beyond 2.5 million. Consequently, they borrowed more in three years than the last Labour Government did in 13—again, the facts.
During those three wasted years, the eurozone slumped almost as badly as Britain. Indeed, the Government frequently pointed to the impact of the crisis in the eurozone on our economy. Of course, that crisis hit our exports, and the Business Secretary, like others, referred to that and its impact in this House during previous Queen’s Speech debates. There are, however, a couple of important points. As the economist Lord Skidelsky put so well in his essay on this subject in March, we should have done so much better than the eurozone, given that we retain the pound and control of our exchange rate. The eurozone slump arose in part because European Finance Ministers were pursuing exactly the same kind of failed policies as the Business Secretary and his colleagues.
Things have thankfully moved on. I know the Prime Minister and Chancellor like to take the credit for the return to growth that we are seeing, but let us be clear: the fact that the recovery has kicked in is down to two things. First is the utter determination and hard work of our businesses and firms in weathering the storm, as well as their ingenuity and continuing capacity to innovate, and second is the hard work and compromises made by their employees.
So often we have sat in this House and had to listen to Government Members, week after week, smearing and denigrating our trade unions. I will be most surprised if we get through this debate without that happening again. The agreements that so many workplace convenors reached with firms and businesses in this country—taking pay cuts; accepting reduced hours—helped keep those firms afloat during these difficult times. That is why I am proud to be a member of the GMB and Unite.
We are certainly not out of the woods. The fact that the Bank of England still has the pedal on the floor with a 0.5% interest rate illustrates how fragile the economy still is, and how far the recovery has to go. More than three quarters of a million young people are still out of work. On average, people are still earning £1,600 a year less than they were when this Government came to office. In fact, just before I came into the Chamber, I was speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) who told me that she has a 42% rate of poverty among the children in her constituency, so we still have a lot more to do.
The 2008-09 crash exposed long-standing, big structural problems in our economy that go back decades, admittedly under Governments of different persuasions, and have to be dealt with. This is in spite of the progress made by the previous Government and the stronger supply-side conditions we achieved. What we have now is an economy unbalanced by sector and region, short-termism in our corporate culture leading to low levels of business investment and low productivity, a dysfunctional finance system, and a stubborn and increasing trade deficit.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think it was a measure of the success of the previous Labour Government when our country lost 1.7 million manufacturing jobs?
Mr Umunna
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to diversify our economy and grow our manufacturing base, but, as I have just said, these structural issues have grown up over a number of decades under Governments of different persuasions.
At the same time as we are dealing with these structural issues, we face more competition from emerging markets and others than we have ever experienced before, with technological advance and automation creating new jobs but destroying old ones too. That has left our economy failing to meet the material needs of too many families. The problems of these imbalances have resulted in our country having one of the highest incidences of low-paid work in the OECD.
I, of course, accept that any job is better than no job. I note that the Chancellor gave a speech earlier this year committing his party to full employment. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The only problem with what the Chancellor said is that it is almost 70 years late. It was, of course, the great reforming Attlee Government who first committed to full employment, in our manifesto “Let us Face the Future” in 1945. Unlike the Chancellor, however, we have long sought to build on that commitment. What we want is for everyone in this country to be able to access good work that affords them a level of dignity and respect, and, importantly, that is secure and pays a wage that they can live off. That is simply not the reality for far too many people in Britain in 2014.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
There are now 1 million people on zero-hours contracts. Does my hon. Friend accept that their lives consist of moving in and out of benefits? When there is discontinuity in benefits, people have to go to food banks. That is not the way to build a strong economy. Surely, we need infrastructure in city regions and to move forward with export-driven growth, rather than having people living in poverty on zero-hours contracts.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman talked about a wage that people can live on. Will a future Labour Government commit to having a living wage in place of the minimum wage, or will his speech be more about rhetoric than firm commitments and pledges to the British people?
Mr Umunna
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, because 22% of employees in his constituency under this Government are paid less than a living wage. I will come on to what we intend to do and what is so sorely lacking in the Queen’s Speech.
We do not want to wait until a Conservative Chancellor sees the light and matches our ambition in 2084. What we are hoping is that in the Queen’s Speech, and the Bills that follow, he will match our commitment and ensure that we have a better-waged economy. There are two parts to this challenge: first, action to tackle low pay and insecurity at work—I will come on to what the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) talked about—and, secondly, the implementation across Government of an industrial strategy to nurture and grow the sectors that produce the better-paid jobs we want to see across the country.
On low pay, we make no apologies for reminding the House at every opportunity that it was this party, in the face of strong opposition, that introduced the national minimum wage. When we entered office, some people were earning as little as £1 an hour, a practice I am proud to say we outlawed. To give just one of the many examples of the opposition we faced, when we introduced the national minimum wage into this House 17 years ago, a member of the then shadow Cabinet said:
“If, as I and all my Conservative colleagues believe, the DTI’s minimum wage comes into effect, it will negatively affect, not hundreds of thousands but millions of people.”—[Official Report, 4 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 526.]
That shadow Cabinet member is now the Work and Pensions Secretary. We had the good sense to ignore him.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On low pay, is my hon. Friend aware of allegations that several UK parcel carriers, namely Hermes and Yodel, are using so-called lifestyle couriers and effectively paying less than the minimum wage to the staff they use?
Mr Umunna
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of that, but I am sure the Business Secretary has heard what he said and will no doubt ensure that his Department looks into those two firms.
We have to build on the national minimum wage. Many Members, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), have argued for us to do so. It is currently £6.31 and is due to increase to £6.50 in October, but that is just 53% of median hourly earnings. We want to set—this in part relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Dover—a more stretching target for the minimum wage for each Parliament, within the Low Pay Commission framework, to increase it faster than average earnings, while retaining capacity to take account of shocks to the economy. We would also give local authorities new powers of inspection and enforcement of the minimum wage, alongside central Government, to ensure it is enforced properly. We would also increase fines for non-payment to £50,000.
A number of measures are contained in the small business, enterprise and employment Bill. We are told, among other things, that the Bill will strengthen UK employment law by tackling national minimum wage abuses. It does not appear, however, that the Government will come close to matching our commitments to strengthen the national minimum wage. There will be no stretching target, no enhanced role for local authorities and much lower fines than we envisage. We will be pushing the Government to adopt our package during the passage of the Bill.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is talking about moving towards something that might eventually look like a national living wage. He will recall that it was the Greens on the London Assembly who made the Living Wage Commission a possibility. Will he also consider, as inequality is such a major issue, maximum pay ratios between the highest and lowest paid in companies?
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
May we add to our consideration of people who end up not being paid the minimum wage the scandal of workers in the care sector? A constituent told me recently that although she is contracted to work 40 hours, she is lucky if she is paid for 15 to 20 hours. She is not paid travel time, is paid in dribs and drabs, and short-notice cancellations are the norm. In many weeks she has ended up being paid for only 15 to 20 hours, yet these are the people we are trusting to provide care for our most vulnerable people.
Mr Umunna
I will just make a little progress and I will give way in a bit.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, under this Government the shocking fact is that for the first time on record more people who are in poverty are now in work than ever before. The minimum wage is important. It is set with an eye to the impact on jobs, but we want employers to pay a living wage. Record numbers are currently paid less than the living wage—I have talked about the 22% in Dover, for example. It is estimated that we have 5.2 million people earning less than the living wage, which is costing the Treasury, at the very least, £750 million in tax credits and £370 million in means-tested benefits. We want to do all we can to ensure that anyone who puts in a hard day’s work gets a decent reward for doing so. That is why it is disappointing to see nothing, not just in this Queen’s Speech but in all four to date, to incentivise employers to pay a living wage.
Stephen Mosley
The proposals to increase the national minimum wage are welcome, but they are no use if the Government then increase taxes and take more money out of people’s pockets. Will the hon. Gentleman do what his leader failed to do last week and rule out any increases in national insurance contributions if Labour were to win the next election?
Mr Umunna
I note that 18.2% of employees in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are paid less than the living wage. I hope he will be encouraging Ministers in his Government to adopt our proposals to incentivise people to pay it, so that he can reduce that percentage in his constituency.
As for the tax and spending policies of any Government in a future Parliament, these will be set out in a Budget at the time. One of the questions that the hon. Gentleman and others will have to answer is whether they envisage making further reductions in the top rate of tax, giving people earning millions of pounds an even bigger tax cut than they have already.
Mr Umunna
I thought that would rile them. I am going to get on, because I want to ensure that we get other people into this debate.
If elected next year, we would introduce “make work pay” contracts to encourage employers to pay a living wage and help businesses to raise the wages of millions of low-paid workers. This is fully costed and will be entirely funded from the increased tax and national insurance revenue that the Treasury would receive. Again, I encourage the hon. Member for City of Chester to encourage those on his Front Bench to adopt that proposal. If they do, we will support it. However, the silence we have heard from those on the Government Benches when it comes to doing anything on the living wage is quite extraordinary. People will remember the Prime Minister’s speech to London citizens back in 2010. In the last week of that campaign, he said he would do all these things to promote the payment of the living wage and he has done next to nothing—nothing—in office.
However, wages are one thing; insecurity at work is another, and never in recent times has it been so resonant an issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said. I am not at all surprised by that, because since they came to office this Government have mounted a full-frontal attack on people’s rights at work. This is often talked about by Government Members as though it were a trade union issue, but it is an every person issue. Every single person in this country who works has had their rights at work attacked by this Government. They have increased the service requirement to claim for unfair dismissal from one to two years, depriving people of the right to seek justice when they have been wronged in the workplace; they have reduced compensatory awards for unfair dismissal; they have reduced the consultation period for collective redundancy; and they have watered down TUPE protections for people. I could go on. Most starkly, this Government have erected a barrier in the way of those seeking redress with the introduction of tribunal fees.
But perhaps the biggest symbol of insecurity is the extensive use of zero-hours contracts in 2014. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 1.4 million zero-hours contracts in use right now.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Just in case his Front-Bench team want to prompt him with statistics, my constituency is Tamworth.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of having a job instead of no job. Has he had correspondence with Labour-run Liverpool council or Labour-run Newham council, which make extensive use of zero-hours contracts?
Mr Umunna
What I have said time and time again in this House when we have debated zero-hours contracts—I will come to this point in a moment—is that the Opposition are not opposed in principle to any use of zero-hours contracts. The question is: what are the Government going to do about their exploitative use? What they have announced so far comes nowhere near close to what we have proposed to deal with the exploitative use of such contracts.
Zero-hours contracts do not oblige employers to offer guaranteed hours of work to their workers. Sure, some workers—it is for this reason that we do not oppose zero-hours contracts in principle—choose the arrangement because they like the flexibility, but for many it leaves them subject to the whim and demands of their employer to work at short notice, promoting insecurity. These arrangements make it almost impossible to own a home, save for a pension or plan family life.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and rightly highlights the difference between the use and abuse of zero-hours contracts. We have seen high levels of youth unemployment in this country. Does he agree that the use of zero-hours contracts sometimes hides a problem that exists for young people getting on to the work ladder? A constituent of mine talked to me about the insecurity he feels. He cannot plan ahead and does not even know whether he can accompany his mum to a hospital appointment, because he has no idea what will come his way in the week.
Mr Umunna
That is a perfect example of the egregious and exploitative use of such arrangements. We are told that the employment Bill will help hard-working people to have confidence in the terms of their contracts and that it will crack down on the abuse of zero-hours contracts, such as the example my hon. Friend mentions. However, the details that we know of suggest that the Government are simply not going far enough. On its own, banning exclusivity clauses in such arrangements will not do the job. We need, among other things, to give workers the right to a fixed-hours contract when they have regularly worked hours with the same employer for a period of time—such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South—and to protect them from having their shifts cancelled at short notice without compensation. Above all, we must ensure that people know that they are on a zero-hours arrangement.
I have talked about jobs, wages and security at work. The other part of reforming the jobs market is the implementation across Government of a proper industrial strategy, both to create the right conditions for businesses to thrive in all regions of the country and to put the full weight of Government behind those sectors that can win gold medals in the global marketplace for the UK, creating more of the middle-income jobs we want to see.
Mr Umunna
I will just make a bit more progress.
Part of that involves ensuring the right environment across the country in all regions for our businesses to grow, and part of it involves a sector-led approach, looking at where we have a competitive edge and comparative advantage relative to our international competitors. I am very supportive of the sectoral approach. It was of course the Labour Government who led the way in that by setting up the Automotive Council.
When it comes to creating the right environment, ensuring that people have the skills our businesses need is crucial. Increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeships is a must. We have a record to be proud of. In government, we rescued apprenticeships from the scrap heap. We more than quadrupled starts—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear it, but let me give them the facts. We more than quadrupled apprenticeship starts, from a woeful 65,000 under the Major Government to 280,000 in our final year in office.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Is it still the Opposition’s policy to get rid of the intermediate apprenticeship?
Mr Umunna
No, it is not, and I should say that the Deputy Prime Minister’s intervention on this subject while standing in for the Prime Minister at PMQs was deeply embarrassing, given that he was attacking an independent report that was produced by a group of experts for us which said exactly the same as his own Secretary of State’s report for his Department on the same subject.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of increasing the numbers of advanced and higher-level apprenticeships would have been to implement my Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill? It would have meant that the billions of pounds of investment that we spend as taxpayers in public procurement could lever in extra apprenticeships at the higher and advanced level.
Mr Umunna
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to his excellent Bill, which I and many of my hon. Friends were here to support, but which was disappointingly ignored by the Government.
What is happening to apprenticeships now? This issue, frequently raised here by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), is worrying.
Mr Umunna
No, I want to make some more progress—[Interruption.] I have been quite generous in giving way.
Countless other colleagues have talked about opportunities for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has drawn attention to the lack of apprenticeship opportunities for people in her constituency. Under-19 apprenticeship starts have fallen by 17,000 over the last academic year, and there are now 2,000 fewer under-19s starting apprenticeships than in 2009-10, and less than 2% of apprenticeship starts last year were at level 4 or above. Where was the Bill in this Queen’s Speech to require all large companies taking on large Government contracts to provide apprenticeships, as we called for? It was not there. Where was the requirement for all apprenticeships to last at least two years and to be at level 3 or above to ensure we maintain their quality? It was not there. We need to see more done on that.
It is important to help those who want to get into work through jobs and training, but it is also important to help those who want to create their own jobs, and they will not be able to do that without the finance. We are told that the small business Bill will make it easier for small businesses to access finance. I really hope so, because in the last year, net lending to small and medium-sized businesses fell by £3.2 billion. Scheme after scheme after scheme—from Project Merlin to funding for lending—has simply failed to resolve these problems. In the last quarter, net lending to businesses by funding for lending participants actually fell by £700 million—an issue on which I know my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) have been campaigning.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Let me inform my hon. Friend that what I hear in my Blackpool surgeries, particularly from small businesses and hoteliers, about the continued failure of a number of banks, including those still supported by this Government, underlines what he is saying. Does that not also underline the fact that we should be looking at the regional initiatives on banks that he and his colleagues have brought forward rather than having the long-standing dithering from the Secretary of State on the whole question of the investment bank?
Mr Umunna
I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem with the Government’s scheme is that, to date, the main transmission mechanism to our small businesses has been the very high street banks that have been the problem. That is why we want to set up not only a British investment bank, but a network of regional banks like the Sparkassen in Germany, to ensure that we get the money to our small businesses.
Finance is one thing, but cash flow is an issue too. If, as we are told, the Government are to extend the obligation for public sector bodies to pay small businesses as their suppliers within 30 days and to apply it all the way down the supply chain, that would be welcome, but on its own it will not be sufficient. We will press Ministers to introduce—I think this will be in the small business Bill—more stringent reporting requirements for customers of small businesses to crack down on those who do not pay on time. I think that the practice of late payment is an absolute national scandal that needs to be dealt with.
I saw the Business Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister make their trip to the pub the other week. On the one hand, I suppose this was a “kiss and make up” event after the activities of a certain rogue pollster—perhaps the Liberal Democrats’ equivalent of Lord Ashcroft; and on the other hand, it was to draw attention to the measures in the Queen’s Speech on a new statutory code and independent adjudicator to ensure that the sole traders and small businesses that run our 20,000 or so tied pubs are treated fairly. To be honest, after the dither and delay we have seen from this Government and the numerous debates we have had to force on the issue, any action from this Government is welcome, but my fear is that the real reforms that we and others across the House have campaigned for will be watered down. We will scrutinise the detail when the provisions are introduced.
I want to say a word about rebalancing, particularly between regions and within regions. It has simply not happened, and I see nothing in this Queen’s Speech to change that.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really strong point about the need to get additional help to the regions. Does he agree that it is unacceptable that start-up businesses in Durham have reduced by 14% over the last year? It is clear that the Government’s policies are not addressing the issues facing the north-east.
Mr Umunna
This is an important issue. Since the recovery kicked in, we have seen around 54% of GDP growth coming in London and the south-east, and around 75% of new jobs created in the same region. It is essential that we see more of that happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency and others around the country.
Let us be honest about it, the Government’s flagship scheme that was supposed to address this problem—the regional growth fund—has become a bit of a joke. More than a third of winning bidders under that scheme’s first round have now withdrawn entirely, while others have been left waiting almost two years to receive their money. Hundreds of millions of pounds of growth fund moneys across the regions are gathering dust in Government coffers and have not yet reached the winning bidders.
Of course, having scrapped our regional development agencies, which I am sure the Business Secretary privately feels was a big mistake, the Government replaced them with local enterprise partnerships, which have simply not been given appropriate budgets or powers to do what was asked of them. In fact, the vast majority of bids made by LEPs to the regional growth fund have been rejected in some regions. Many colleagues across the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) has spoken of his area’s desire for a city deal—will tell us, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) has just done, that a lot more needs to be done to rebalance our economy geographically.
On sectors, the Business Secretary’s predecessor, the noble Lord Mandelson, started pursuing a course of industrial activism, which, in the main, the Business Secretary has continued in his overall approach. There is a degree of consensus on the principles—that is a good thing—and industrial strategy is part of agenda 2030, our plan for better balanced sustainable growth, which is winning support from businesses across the country. But unless we get the overall environment right—on skills and finance, as I have discussed—across the whole country, delivery on these sectoral strategies will be compromised.
Let me finish by saying a few words about our export position. The Government promised an export-led recovery in their plan for growth. That has simply not materialised, and the measures that the Business Secretary and the Chancellor have introduced to date seem to have made no impact on that. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the Budget would have no impact on our net trade position.
The promise to increase exports to £1 trillion by 2020 is disappearing out of reach. It has been reported that civil servants have privately conceded that the Government’s promise to get 100,000 new companies exporting by the end of the decade is “not going to happen”. This is hardly surprising when the Government have not done enough to ensure that small firms are made aware of the support that is out there. Half the members of the Federation of Small Businesses do not even know that UK Trade & Investment exists. They need to be given much more information and to be made more aware of what help is available. But then the performance of some of these schemes has been totally lamentable. The £5 billion export refinancing scheme, which was launched in July 2012 as part of the Government’s UK Guarantees scheme, and the £1.5 billion direct lending scheme, launched to great fanfare several months ago, have not helped a single firm. We need to see much more competent delivery of these schemes.
It is clear that our country has huge potential, and there is a huge amount of talent waiting to be unlocked, but people need a Government to empower them to realise their dreams and aspirations. That is not happening under this Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) talks about the long-term economic plan. The fact is that for many people—including people in my constituency, where, on average, people are earning £2,300 a year less than they were when the Government came to office—this “long-term economic plan” is a long-term economic sham. That is why we aim to ensure that we can allow and empower people to meet their aspirations by making certain that, this time next year, we are sitting on the other side of the House.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
It is a pleasure to respond to the Opposition amendment, and to introduce a debate on the general topic of jobs and the world of work on what is a very good day for jobs. I was struck by the fact that, in something over half an hour, the shadow Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna)—did not make even a passing reference to today’s unemployment figures.
I shall take a three-pronged approach to this debate. I shall deal first with the creation of jobs. Job creation depends on enterprise and business, and a key element of the Queen’s Speech is support for business through the small business Bill, which covers issues such as access to finance, Government procurement, prompt payment and, of course, pubs.
Secondly, I shall make it clear that as our economy recovers—and the recovery is now very firmly embedded —we want to ensure that that recovery is translated into higher-paid jobs and more secure employment. The small business Bill contains measures relating to zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage. It will also ensure that people have decent pensions when they retire, which is another thing that the shadow Secretary of State did not mention. Over a long period, for demographic and economic reasons and as a result of policy failures, there has been a gradual decline in the defined-benefit system, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), the Pensions Minister, are reconstructing a sensible, durable environment for pensioners.
Thirdly, I shall talk about the issue of trust in business. One of the blows to our economy, and many other western economies, during the financial crisis has been a loss of trust. The Bill contains a serious of measures—to which the shadow Secretary of State did not refer—relating to transparency of ownership and the duty of directors, which will be important to the reconstruction of that trust.
Let me begin, however, by commenting on the Opposition amendment. I try to be polite, but the amendment is not exactly bulging with creative policy initiatives. It contains only one recommendation, which relates to a
“target to raise the National Minimum Wage faster than average earnings”.
The shadow Secretary of State seems to be telling me to do what I am already doing, which is giving guidance to the Low Pay Commission so that it can do exactly that; but I am not entirely sure what the Opposition’s policy is. Is the target to be mandated? If so, that undermines the autonomy of the Low Pay Commission. If not, what the shadow Secretary of State recommends is exactly what we are doing at present, which is giving forward guidance.
I should like to clarify another point. Two or three weeks ago, the Opposition had another policy on the national minimum wage, namely that it should be indexed to earnings. There is no reference to that in the amendment. Is it still the Opposition’s policy? I suspect that, when they did the sums, they discovered that indexing the minimum wage in that way would make it lower than it is now, and quietly dropped it, but may I ask what is the current status of the proposal?
In the amendment, the shadow Secretary of State sensibly acknowledges that the Low Pay Commission must
“take account of shocks to the economy.”
However, he does not mention whether the commission should take account of the impact on employment. That has been at the heart of its work. If it is indeed to take account of the impact on employment, why—as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) asked earlier—are the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues now promoting the idea of higher taxes on employers through national insurance? If this is to be the major theme of the Opposition’s attack on the Queen’s Speech, their approach will require a great deal more clarity and a great deal more consistency.
Let me now say something about today’s figures, because they are important, even if the shadow Secretary of State did not think it worth his while to talk about them.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Vince Cable
May I finish this point first? As the hon. Lady knows, I am happy to take interventions.
In the last quarter, 340,000 new jobs have been created; 780,000 have been created in the last year, and 2 million have been created since the Government came to office. The level of unemployment is now 6.6%, and is one of the lowest in the developed world. We are approaching German levels, and our figure is significantly better than those in almost all the other European countries. We have 600,000 job vacancies, and if the shadow Secretary of State goes around the country talking to businesses, as I do, he will know that the talk is increasingly of job shortages rather than unemployment. In many key categories— those aged 65 and over, women, disabled people, and lone parents—more people are in work than before the recession began. Of course there are serious unemployment problems among young people —we acknowledge that—but youth unemployment is 100,000 down over the year, while long-term unemployment is down by 108,000.
Sheila Gilmore
Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the growing gap between the unemployment figures and the claimant count? More than 2 million people are still unemployed. It is clear that many of those people are not receiving benefits of any kind, and they seem to have disappeared from the statistics. Is the Secretary of State, perhaps in partnership with his colleagues, trying to find out why that is and what we can do to help those people?
Vince Cable
I have been quoting the figures from the International Labour Organisation, which provides the international accepted definition, and they include the people whom the hon. Lady has described. Of course, many people are self-employed, and many of those are potential entrepreneurs. I am sure that she would not want to diminish their contribution.
Opposition Members often say “The job figures are fine as far as they go, but are those jobs full time?” As a result of the strengthening of the labour market within the last year, three quarters of all new jobs have been full-time. Moreover, some interesting information has emerged during the last few weeks. People who are doing part-time work, which is often criticised, have been questioned to establish how many of them wish to do full-time work. The current figure is about 20%, and it is useful to compare that with the figures for the European Union as a whole, for France and for southern Europe, which are 30%, 40% and 60% respectively. The underlying trends in the labour market—not just the top-line figures—are significantly healthier in this country than they are in almost every other part of the European Union.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has not yet mentioned young unemployed people. I know that he is always keen to look for ways in which the Liberal Democrats are making a difference in government. Will he tell us about his leader’s youth contract, which, it was claimed, would help 160,000 young people into work by incentivising employers? How many young people have benefited so far?
Vince Cable
The fact that youth unemployment has fallen by 100,000 in the last year is significantly owing to the youth contract, as is the advance in apprenticeships—and the shadow Secretary of State’s comments on apprenticeships were an absolute travesty. We know that there has been a big increase in terms of both quantity and quality, and, of course, the support given to employers so that they can take on young people has been an important and extremely positive element of the youth contract.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
One of the problems is that all too often under this Government work simply does not pay enough. Does the Secretary of State accept any responsibility for the fact that since the Government came to power, the number of working people claiming housing benefit in Croydon has increased by 1,100%?
Vince Cable
Quite a lot of those people have moved from unemployment to work, which explains the change in the definition. However, we want to ensure that people are in work and are properly paid in work, rather than being dependent on benefits.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
What are the Government doing to deal with the fact that people under 25 are four times more likely to be unemployed than those over 25? He has talked about youth unemployment, but that group really is not benefiting from any of the Government’s policies.
Vince Cable
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I know that in her constituency there is a particular problem with graduate unemployment, which we have discussed. Youth unemployment is a long-standing problem. It was very substantial even before we got into this major recession and financial crisis. We need to deal with it in a variety of ways: job training, apprenticeships and by providing a better-working market.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I ran a business before coming into this place and the Secretary of State will know that what businesses need is confidence that they will be rewarded for making the right decisions. That will encourage businesses to take on more people and deal with many of the issues raised by the Labour party. This Government have given businesses confidence and that is why we are seeing significant reductions in unemployment.
Vince Cable
That is why I started my speech by saying that the most important thing we are doing is encouraging small businesses to grow. That is where the jobs come from. That is what I am keen to get to, but as the Opposition amendment was couched solely in terms of the second element of the Bill, that is what I am now trying to address.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s stance, which is to pick out any poor statistic or position, highlights that they are completely in denial about the recovery’s strength? It exposes their lack of any vision to secure economic growth for this country.
Vince Cable
I was going to go on shortly to what is underpinning labour market growth, which is strong and balanced economic growth. I will come back to that.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Is the Secretary of State as disappointed as I am by the constant deriding of manufacturing and the growth in the economy by the shadow Secretary of State, who, every time he gets up, runs the economy down? Is that the right way to give confidence to businesses to drag us out of the recession that Labour left behind?
Vince Cable
I will take more interventions later, if hon. Members will let me make a little progress. That intervention prompts me to remind the House where we are with the economy. We are the strongest growing of the major G7 countries. Major forecasts by the IMF and the OECD suggest that this year growth will be between 2.7% and 3.5%, which is quite exceptional in current circumstances, with the trend continuing in 2015.
What is more important is the fact that that has been achieved in a balanced way. In the last three quarters, manufacturing has been growing faster than the economy as a whole. Business investment, which was seriously depressed through the recession, is now experiencing double-digit growth on an annualised basis. I was taken aback when the hon. Member for Streatham started to tell me about the industrial strategy. I was in the House for the 13 years of the last Labour Government. Throughout that period, any suggestion that we have the kind of industrial strategy that we are now leading was regarded with utter ridicule by—
Vince Cable
I will in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has reminded us of some genuinely useful things that were left by my predecessor, including the Automotive Council. Of course no money or long-term investment was attached. We are now doing work with the high-value manufacturing sector through the Catapult centres. There has been a billion-pound co-investment in new automotive propulsion systems. That did not exist. However, some things left by my predecessor were useful. They were small, but they did contribute to what is now a valued industrial strategy supported on both sides of industry. I am glad that the Opposition have bought into it, albeit rather belatedly.
Vince Cable
My Department is now very different. It now includes universities, science and many other things. In one period during the last Labour Government—the hon. Gentleman may remember it; I think that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was the Minister who started the change—there were about 186 different systems of industrial support, the cumulative effect of which was largely negative because we had large-scale deindustrialisation. We are pursuing the strategy in a much more concerted way, in partnership with business and on a long-term basis. That is what we are achieving.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about how the policy is seeking to grow the economy in a balanced way, but does he accept that many regions of the UK are not growing at the same rate as the south-east of England, for example? Places such as Northern Ireland are suffering from that. Why in the Queen’s Speech is there no reference, for example, to the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive, which would help them to grow the economy in Northern Ireland by more than is happening at present?
Vince Cable
I accept the point that there are regional differences in the pace at which the recovery is happening. As it happens, of the four nations in the UK, Scotland and Wales are growing more rapidly than the UK average. However, Northern Ireland is not. I know that there is a debate about corporation tax. I do not think that is the central issue. The problem in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is that two major banks are bad banks and are seriously contracting lending to small business. I am trying to work with the Northern Ireland authorities to assist with that.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has not so far given the figures on zero-hours contracts. He will know that the Office for National Statistics has said that 1.4 million people are on those contracts, but the Government say that only 250,000 are. What is the reason for the difference?
Vince Cable
I was going to talk about zero-hours contracts later, but since the right hon. Gentleman has asked me the question, I will try to explain. There are very different estimates of zero-hours contracts. The ONS gives very different figures from other surveys. They range from roughly 2% to 4% of all jobs. It is worth mentioning this in passing. The shadow Secretary of State has been quite modest about his own contribution. He has been in correspondence with the statistical authority, which rebuked him for being misleading in terms of the trend in zero-hours contracts. It is a significant problem, and in a few moments, I will come to how we want to address it.
Let me move on to the underlying question in relation to zero-hours contracts and to what the Opposition are trying to say about living standards. What has always surprised me in these debates is that people are surprised that living standards fell in the wake of the financial crisis. Let me rehearse some basic facts. In the 2008-09 crisis, the British economy contracted by over 7%—more than any other major economy. It was the worst shock to our country—worse than in the 1930s. It was only after the first world war that we had a comparable hit to our economy. It was an enormous disruption, with massive implications for people’s jobs and living standards. It did happen under the last Government. It was not entirely their mistake, but it was on their watch and they had a substantial responsibility for it.
That contraction of output inevitably translated into people’s living standards, and median wages in real terms contracted by about 7% as a result of the crisis. That has been the impact on living standards. It is clear. What is different from previous recessions is that the people at the bottom end of the scale have been protected by two things: first, the minimum wage—there is cross-party consensus on that, which I welcome—and, secondly, tax policies that led us to lift large numbers of low earners out of tax altogether.
Let us look at what the combination of those factors has meant and the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It makes the point that the contraction in real take-home pay for people in the bottom 10% was 2.5%. For the people in the middle, it was 6% and for the people in the top 10%, it was 8.7%. That was an essentially progressive response to a major economic crisis. Of course there are still major inequalities of income and wealth. We acknowledge that, but that relates to the top 1%, rather than the top 10%.
How do we strengthen the minimum wage system, which my colleagues and I fully buy into? We decided earlier this year to increase the minimum wage faster than inflation—a 3% increase, the biggest cash increase since before the recession. The Low Pay Commission has issued guidance to secure improvements to the real minimum wage. We accept that one of the main challenges—which the last Government did absolutely nothing about—was enforcement. We inherited a system in which the maximum fine per company was £5,000. Under this legislation, we will strengthen it to £20,000 per worker—a big step up in taking seriously sanctions in respect of the minimum wage. We now have a naming and shaming regime in place, and 30 companies have been named since it was initiated a few months ago, and as a result of much more active intervention by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, we have increased by a factor of 38% the amount of arrears identified and paid to employees. All the things that the shadow Secretary of State is calling for are now being done.
Let me address the specific issue of zero-hours contacts. It is a problem, but let us get it into perspective. Although there are wide variations in the estimated number of zero-hours contracts, we are talking probably about between 2% and 4% of jobs. Of course we do not want people in that type of employment to be disadvantaged, but many take up such employment voluntarily, and particularly for students and older workers, it is an attractive system. For some, however, it is exploitative and as a result of our consultation—one of the biggest that the Government have undertaken, with over 36,000 people responding—it was very clear that there were some points on which action needed to be taken, and we are going to take action on exclusivity.
Geraint Davies
Does the Secretary of State accept in principle that if the Government converted a £20,000 a year job into two £10,000 a year jobs, with the higher tax threshold, he would be moving from tax payment to zero tax payment, and that this inflexibility and zero-hours and part-time work are contributing massively towards the increasing debt we face under his Government?
Vince Cable
That is attributing a slightly sinister train of argument to employers, which is not the case. There are many industries that have flexible working arrangements—and zero-hours contracts are only one form of flexible working—which the work force accept. The shadow Secretary of State talked proudly about his membership of Unite. I engage with the car trade unions, which accept that zero-hours contracts have quite an important part to play in the flexible working in the automobile industry.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
In the Government’s response to the debate that we held on zero-hours contracts last October, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), said that it was perfectly reasonable for Opposition Members to ask whether the consultation would also address problems with short-time working and agency working. What conclusions did the consultation come to on those aspects of employment practice?
Vince Cable
I am not sure precisely what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. As he knows, there is an agency workers directive, which we have transposed into British law. It is not terribly popular with many parts of business, but it was agreed between employers and employees. I am not sure what else he is referring to.
Barbara Keeley
I want to refer back to the points made about the quality of jobs and whether jobs are full time or part time, and how people feel about that. Will the Secretary of State comment on a recruitment exercise that an agency has just done in my constituency for jobs in a warehouse that start at 3 in the morning, when there is no public transport? A very large number of people were put through a week-long recruitment exercise for that, and only a very small number were offered jobs. They were offered four hours of work a day, starting at 3 or 4 in the morning at a warehouse. People were mandated to attend that training. This is the kind of thing that is happening. Does the Secretary of State think that my constituents want to be offered jobs picking in a warehouse at 3 in the morning when there is no transport and where, instead of offering full-time jobs to fewer people, a larger number of people are being offered four or five hours of work a day? How can people live with that kind of casualisation?
Vince Cable
Obviously, I do not know all the details of that case, but it seems a very bad one. It is not clear to me whether it is to do with the employer or the way that the benefits system has impacted on people, but if the hon. Lady writes to me we will get it investigated.
Charlie Elphicke
I am a passionate believer in reform of zero-hours contracts, but does the Secretary of State agree that Opposition Members’ comments sit ill with the White Paper that the Labour Government issued that said that Labour
“wishes to retain the flexibility these contracts offer business”?
They then proceeded to do nothing about it for the rest of their time in office.
Vince Cable
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that. Two of my Labour predecessors investigated this problem and neither of them felt there was sufficient cause to change the legislation.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The figures show that 580 more people are employed in my constituency now than this time last year, which is positive news for the area. However, what conversations is the Secretary of State having with the devolved Administrations to ensure unemployment continues to be tackled, especially for low-wage earners?
Vince Cable
Although the situation is improving in Northern Ireland, there are significant unemployment black spots. I want to work with the Northern Ireland devolved authorities to make sure that we deal with them systematically. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a long-standing problem in Northern Ireland that goes back long before the recession.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I raised previously allegations concerning a number of UK parcel carriers and minimum wage enforcement. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at whether the minimum wage is being properly enforced by UK parcel carriers? Apart from the justice issues for the individuals concerned, there is the potential to affect the sustainability of the universal service obligation that Royal Mail is under.
Vince Cable
Certainly, if there is abuse of the minimum wage, we will want to know about it and we will investigate it. Liberalisation and the opening of the market was mandated by the European Commission some years ago, and it was implemented by the last Government, and we are now seeing the consequences in terms of pay and conditions.
Fiona O'Donnell
Will the Secretary of State remind me—and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, while he is sitting at his side—whether he still believes that any of my constituents on jobseeker’s allowance who turn down a zero-hours contract job offer should then be subject to sanctions?
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has taken several questions on zero-hours contracts, but may I ask him a slightly different question? One of the most interesting statistics that has come out today is from the south-west Manufacturing Advisory Service, which serves as a leading indicator: 49% of all small and medium-sized enterprises manufacturing in the south-west have said they expect to employ more people over the next six months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we look at the forward leading indicators—whether for zero-hours or full-time employment in a great industry like aerospace in the corridor between Bristol and Cheltenham or other manufacturing industries around my constituency of Gloucester—we see there are huge indications of really positive jobs growth in really good growth industries?
Vince Cable
Yes, there are, and that is a very good example. We had an earlier exchange on the aerospace industry. One of the major accomplishments of the industrial strategy is that we now have a partnership stretching between Parliaments, guaranteeing large-scale investment by the Government as well by industry, and that is one of the factors contributing to the confidence that my hon. Friend described.
In my concluding remarks, I want to refer to the specific measures introduced in the small business Bill, which will support small business. Let me say at the outset that I fully accept the shadow Secretary of State’s point that one of the central issues affecting small business is access to bank credit. It remains a very big issue, and it is not difficult to understand why. We had the biggest banking crisis in our history going all the way back to the beginning of the 19th century. We have never had anything on this scale, and Britain was uniquely affected because of the scale of banks in the UK relative to GDP—it is higher, I think, than in any other country except Iceland—and, again, the Labour Government had responsibility at the time. The effect of the bank collapse and the subsequent deleveraging that has taken place, particularly in RBS, have been deeply damaging to business. We understand that and are taking steps to deal with it.
The British Business bank is now playing a significant part. Over the past year, I think there have been net flows of £660 million into the small business sector. That is a mixture of new flows to organisations such as Funding Circle and to the challenger banks, together with the guarantee schemes, which have increased by a factor of 75% since they came under the Business bank.
We are running up a downward-moving escalator, but the Government accept that we have a responsibility to intervene heavily to support like lending in the wake of an extremely damaging banking crisis. That is the context in which we are operating. The Bill will contain a series of measures that will help further. Late payment is a massive issue for small businesses, with something in the order of £30 billion in outstanding payments. The legislation will introduce a requirement on companies to be much more transparent in how they deal with late payments.
We also want to introduce much more competition in banking, to ensure that banks will come forward and lend to small businesses. Within the last year, we have seen the creation of a whole set of new banks, supported by the Business bank. The big obstacle—which I recall describing in the House 15 years ago at the time of the Cruickshank report—is the fact that the four leading banks had a stranglehold over the process through the payments system. We have introduced a new form of regulation of the payments system, opening it up to competition and preventing the kind of stranglehold that the existing banks have. The Bill will enable that to happen. In addition, we want to ensure that we have a proper system of data sharing. The lack of such a system is one of the obstacles to new banks coming in and competing. There are also problems with export finance, but the new Bill will enable us to extend export finance into new areas.
The shadow Secretary of State talked about the small business measures having taken a long time, and we accept that. There has been a massive consultation on pubs, for example. It has gone on for many years—indeed, it started long before this Government came into office—but we are now taking action. There will be a statutory code and an arbitration body. There will also be an option for an independent, market-based rent review. I am sure that we will discuss this legislation extensively, but it does represent action after many years of pressure from the Select Committee and from other Members.
Other business measures will include those relating to public procurement. This Government have opened up public procurement in central Government to small business in a way that has never happened before, but that has not always happened throughout the wider public sector, including local government. The measures that we are introducing in this big Bill will considerably improve practice in public procurement, opening up the rest of the public sector.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State might have had representations from local opticians who had previously provided a service to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. All their contracts have been taken away from them, bundled up and handed to one big national company, Specsavers. Does not that show that, although the rhetoric might be fine, many Departments are still letting the system down?
Vince Cable
When the right hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, I think that he will find that there has been a substantial increase in the share of small businesses in central Government procurement. I am not a customer of Specsavers, but I will happily investigate the case that he raises.
The criticism from the Opposition and certain outside commentators has been that the legislative programme is light, and that there will not be a great deal for the House to do. In relation to the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, I would simply say be careful what you wish for. It will be one of the major pieces of legislation, and it will get to grips with many detailed, complex issues. It will make a significant difference. We are introducing it against the background of a real, balanced recovery that is having a major effect on employment, and it will reflect the substantial achievements of this Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to the House that a large number of people wish to speak in the debate and that there is limited time. I should also point out that the Front-Bench speeches have taken well over an hour, so if Members wish to remonstrate about the shortness of time, they should address their remonstrations not to the Chair, but to those on the Front Benches. I have to impose a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
In view of the shortness of time, I shall confine my remarks to two aspects of the Queen’s Speech. The first relates to the commitment to increase the number of apprenticeship places to 2 million, and the second relates to pub companies. Both issues have attracted considerable interest from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, as the Secretary of State has acknowledged.
I welcome the commitment to having 2 million apprenticeship places, but if the Government are to avoid the accusation that they are not matching their rhetoric with detailed policies to deliver those places, we shall need more information on this proposal and on the changes to other policies that will be necessary. In regard to the Government’s phraseology, I must point out that “apprenticeship places” are not necessarily the same as apprenticeship placements. If we look at the records for the past full year, we can see that the number of apprenticeship placements that were actually taken up fell to 510,000. Raising the total number of apprentices to 2 million will therefore require a considerable change in policy. Perhaps more seriously, there has been a drop in the number of apprentices taking placements in the key sectors at which the Government are aiming this policy—namely, construction and manufacturing. If we are to have a skills programme based on apprentices that is designed to address the acute skills shortage—which will be strategically important in delivering economic growth—we will need a far more comprehensive list of policy proposals.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Bailey
I am sorry; I will not give way owing to the shortness of time.
A factor in getting more people to take up apprenticeships in key areas is the culture that exists in schools. We need better careers advice, as the City and Guilds Group pointed out following the Queen’s Speech. It commented on the lamentable level of careers advice in schools, which was ensuring that awareness of apprenticeships in key areas remained low compared with the awareness—and, indeed, promotion—of more academic qualifications for young people. I cannot go into greater detail at the moment, but we need a change in the culture in our schools if we are to deliver a pipeline of young people into apprenticeship places in order to deliver on a forward-looking economic agenda for the Government. If we were to revert to a numbers-driven target for apprenticeship places, there would be a real danger of boosting numbers without taking into account quality or relevance. That would simply reinforce the negative perception of apprenticeships, creating a further barrier to recruitment.
My other point relates to pub companies. The Secretary of State has rightly recognised the work of the Select Committee on this issue, and I pay tribute to him for reversing the position of the previous Minister responsible for pub companies, who was prepared to commit only to a voluntary approach. The Secretary of State has recognised that the industry has dragged its feet and been obstructive, and he is now introducing legislation.
The proposals for a statutory code and an independent regulator are welcome, although we shall no doubt want to debate them in greater detail later. However, the failure to commit to introducing a mandatory free-of-tie option will leave publicans feeling let down and disillusioned. It was ironic that when the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister held their meeting in a pub, we were not quite sure whether a pub company owned that pub. They will have had to be quite selective about the pub they visited in order to get the welcome that they wanted.
The fact is that the overwhelming number of tenants support a free-of-tie option and a mandatory rent review. According to the Government’s consultation, 92% of tenants saw the beer tie as their biggest challenge. My conversations with tenants on this issue and the proposals in the Government response indicate that one of the key problems is the deep suspicion of the rent revaluations based on Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors guidelines; their experience has not given them any confidence that this will significantly address issues that have been so long debated.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to review things after two years. Although I am not in a position to bind the future Select Committee, I strongly recommend that it carry out further inquiries in this area, with a view to raising the issue again with future Governments.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Gracious Speech. I shall concentrate my remarks on small businesses, growth and jobs, but first I shall comment briefly on the inclusion in the Serious Crime Bill of the recognition of the emotional and psychological neglect of children as an offence.
The wilful withholding of emotional warmth and support is damaging to psychological well-being and to mental health, and can lead to negative long-term outcomes for young people, an absence of self-worth, risky behaviour, poor academic achievement and offending. I hope that during the Bill’s passage consideration might be given to extending legislative protection to children up to the age of 18 who have experienced emotional deprivation in this type of upbringing, have never received approval, praise or encouragement, and would find sustaining independent adult life without succumbing to its many pitfalls extremely challenging.
I welcome the measures in the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, which will build on the fall in unemployment both nationally and in Hornchurch and Upminster. Since 2001, my constituency had been stuck with an unemployment rate of about 3.5%, but this year the claimant rate has dropped to 2.8%. That is not just a statistic; it means that many individuals who have been released from benefit dependency have gained not just an earned income but self-esteem and the satisfaction of independence. This Government’s welfare reforms have all contributed to the fall in unemployment, especially for people who have been out of work long term. The £2,000 off employers’ national insurance bills, the doubling of small business rate relief until April 2015, the increased number of apprenticeships and the new private sector jobs, particularly in retail and construction—up 9% and 19% respectively in Hornchurch and Upminster—have all contributed to the fall in unemployment.
I pay tribute to the schools and colleges in my constituency, and to the value they place on fiscal education, the preparation they give for adult life in their citizenship classes, and the development of life skills, which inspire ambition and aspiration in their pupils to achieve their maximum potential through further education, apprenticeship or employment. That is particularly important for pupils who come from workless households, where these examples of opportunities for a successful future may not be considered. Those pupils need to know that the professions, public service and starting up a business are all open to them, and are not just for other people.
Ford, as a large employer in a neighbouring constituency, is also playing an important role by supporting the women in engineering compact, which was launched on 7 May. Ford has traditionally provided jobs for my constituents and is now influencing the future career paths of female students by demonstrating the attractiveness of technical careers to women by visiting schools and colleges to talk about the opportunities in STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—careers.
Small businesses are the foundation of the local economy in my constituency. The majority—86%—have an annual turnover of less than £250,000; 10% have a turnover of between £250,000 and £l million; and only 4% have a turnover of between £1 million and £5 million. These figures represent an increase of 11% in the first quarter of 2014 over the same quarter in 2013, which explains the increase in local job availability. Many people commute daily to London to work using c2c or the District line, but the many local small businesses provide jobs for local people who prefer to work locally. I know they will welcome the establishment of a deregulation target and the introduction of a new appeals champion to protect business against the impact of costly and burdensome regulation. They will also welcome the new measures to tackle late payment by larger firms, which causes serious cash flow problems in a small business. In addition, the streamlining of access to the public procurement market for small businesses will widen opportunities for the growth that enables those businesses to create more jobs and help unemployed people back into work.
The London chamber of commerce and industry has welcomed this Bill but has raised concern about inadequate skills availability, reporting that 45% of London businesses had difficulty recruiting suitably qualified staff to fill vacancies, and that despite stubbornly high youth unemployment there remains a significant skills gap in a number of sectors. Employers recognise that younger people can be a great asset to their business, but developing their skills can be a costly investment. There is an opportunity for closer collaboration between colleges, training and apprenticeship providers, employers and government to pool their knowledge and experience to ensure that young people are acquiring the right skills to make them employable. Both the London chamber of commerce and industry and the Federation of Small Businesses welcome this Bill, and so do I—I wish it a speedy passage through Parliament.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
In March 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that
“while unemployment has come down, there are still over 2 million looking for a job. It will take time to fix that. But we will not rest while we still have so much wasted potential in some parts of our country.”
I could not agree more, but in the fifth year of this Government I would offer an alternative recipe to the one that has so far been provided.
The fact is that there is greater insecurity in the workplace, not as a consequence of the Government’s economy strategy but because it is at the heart of that strategy. As we have heard today, competition on low wages and low-skilled jobs will not lead individuals or families out of impoverishment. People face the insecurity of zero-hours contracts, which we have rightly discussed, with the Office for National Statistics estimating that 1.4 million are involved. It is shameful that nobody can say with any certainty the precise number of people who are forced to work on these contracts. I welcome the Secretary of State’s saying in response to my intervention that this is “a significant problem”—it is indeed, and I hope he will accept that now is the time to lift the lid on what is going on, to remove the veil of secrecy and to provide some transparency so that we can be told exactly what is going on.
Earlier this year, I asked the Chancellor a question about unemployment in my constituency, but his reply skated over the reality. Setting aside part-time, zero-hours and low-paid jobs, I will tell the House the reality. Since the global crisis, the unemployment figures for my constituency have rocketed from 2,800 in 2008 to 5,300 in 2014—that is a staggering increase of 89.3%. What about the future? Youth unemployment has increased by 53.5% in the same period. And all this has happened as the rich have become wealthier while under this Government millions of people—many of them in my constituency—have barely had an increase in pay.
Is it any wonder that these policies are leading to extremes? “Get us out of Britain”, says the Scottish National party in Scotland. “Get us out of Europe”, screams the United Kingdom Independence party. “Let’s become inward-looking and introspective in response to global challenges”, it says, while 3.1 million jobs are at risk over Europe. The media would have us believe that in the recent European elections, people voted principally against Europe and against immigration. Neither I nor the polls agree. As Nye Bevan once said:
“Such a naive belief in the rational conduct of human beings would wipe out the whole of modern psychology.”
Is it any wonder that, out of frustration, people looking for jobs can be duped or beguiled into believing the propaganda from both UKIP and the SNP? They are responding to their own experiences of declining standards of living and austerity. Therein lies my deepest worry, which is reflected in what is going on in France. I am talking about the challenge to freedom itself.
As we emerged from the second world war, we had to deal with greater economic challenges and a far bigger deficit problem than we have now. Sir William Beveridge in his book “Full Employment in a Free Society,” wrote:
“If full employment is not won and kept, no liberties are secure, for to many they will not seem worthwhile.”
There is an immense responsibility on this House, at this period in our history, to respond to the real concerns of ordinary people, who know, despite the statistics and propaganda, that life for them is very difficult. There are difficulties in dealing with the cost of living; difficulties in dealing with energy prices; and difficulties in finding jobs and in keeping them. In the interests of all our people throughout the United Kingdom, we should ensure that there are real, well-paid jobs and a good future for our young people based on proper apprenticeship and training. We should seize the opportunity, even in the short time between now and the election, to respond to the British people and ensure that we aim to help the many and not just the few.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. As I indicated earlier, there are a great many colleagues still wishing to speak; indeed there are 40 of them. Therefore, after the next speaker, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Like the Secretary of State, let me start by concentrating on today’s good employment figures, especially those from Henley. We have seen a 60% drop in the unemployment figures, giving us a lower level of unemployment than before the general election of 2010. The figure itself stands at 371, which makes us the third best performing constituency in the UK—the two constituencies that beat us probably have more sheep than people. It is 21 lower than in April 2014, and 209 lower than a year ago. Crucially, the number of young unemployed remains around the 20 mark for the two towns of Thame and Henley.
The shadow Secretary of State attacked this Government’s long-term economic plan, but these figures show that the plan is working, and the good news that there are 2 million more people in work since the election reinforces that point. The news is exceptionally good. In my constituency, we would have to go back more than six years to find such good figures. It is a remarkable achievement and I am proud of the way in which business has reacted locally to help young people get into jobs. These remain difficult times for families who are still feeling the impact of the recession, but the foundations for a broad-based recovery are now in place. I am keen to see living standards continue to rise so that we can build on those foundations, and we need to keep growing the economy and creating more jobs.
The problem for me is that there are too few people who are unemployed to have a meaningful jobs club. I found a way around that, which was to have a club to encourage and teach businesses how to keep their employees rather than my trying to find placements for them.
In looking at how this Queen’s Speech continues to build on the good work already started in the long-term economic plan, I want to put my finger on one measure in particular, which is national insurance contributions. Cutting businesses’ national insurance contributions by £2,000 has taken 450,000 firms out of paying employer NIC all together. That follows on from increasing the secondary threshold—the level of earnings above which employers start to pay national insurance for an employee.
We were prevented from sharing in the national insurance holiday introduced in the first Budget as it was regionally oriented away from the south-east, but the £2,000 relief introduced in Budget 2013, the employment allowance, was a welcome addition. Will Labour now confirm that it will not increase that tax again?
The national insurance contributions Bill heralded in the Queen’s Speech is required to simplify the collection of NICs payable by the self-employed and to tackle certain avoidance measures. I urge Ministers to look carefully at the situation in which a small proportion of people pay their class 2 NICs and are not in self-assessment. They need to be able to continue to pay their class 2 NICs.
I was pleased to see that the avoidance measures tackle the situation in which people hang on to the cash in question through long disputes and it will stop them gaining a potentially significant cash-flow advantage. I urge Ministers to ensure that the scheme is tightly drawn so that it will not catch innocent providers.
I also want to touch on the small business, enterprise and employment Bill. Small businesses make a huge contribution to the UK economy and account for around half of UK jobs. One of the areas that the Bill tackles is that of employment tribunals. I understand that it tries to prevent their postponement. Employment tribunals often suffer unnecessary delays, and one of the contributing factors is the frequent requests for postponements at short notice. That has a big impact on the costs to business. It is also necessary to ensure that the rights of claimants are protected, and I was pleased to see the idea of a penalty for non-payment of employment tribunal awards.
One of the other sections of this Bill is the need to ensure that employers pay their workers at least the national minimum wage. The enforcement of that measure is very serious. We are already the first Government to name and shame employers. The number of employers penalised last year almost doubled to more than 600, and the new measure is a logical extension of that.
Finally, on apprenticeship reforms, anything that can be done to ease access to apprenticeships and increase our understanding of them has to be welcome. I am thinking of short, simple standards rather than long, complex frameworks to characterise apprenticeships. It will also be necessary to increase their quality through higher expectations of English and maths and to raise aspirations
The Queen’s Speech contains those and many other measures, which will help to boost jobs and work. It will help small businesses access the public procurement market and hopefully lead to more reductions in unemployment in my constituency.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
When the opportunity arises, I will express my reservations about, if not opposition to, the recall Bill. It is not the right way of dealing with a matter that is obviously of concern to all of us, which is those Members who act in a wrong and dishonest way. We should bear it in mind that two Members have recently resigned in circumstances that we all understand, so there is a different way of dealing with these matters rather than in a recall Bill.
Obviously, I want to deal with the main subject of today’s debate. The Queen’s Speech refers to rewarding those who work hard, and I agree with that; it is a good sentiment. However, it does not describe the situation as it is. Millions—literally millions—of people throughout the country, a good number of whom are actually in jobs, are struggling week by week to try to make ends meet. Despite all the denials by Government Members, poverty is increasing. That is certainly the case in my constituency and other parts of the west midlands. More than 50% of families who are living in poverty have at least one adult in work. Yes, we want people to be able to have jobs—unemployment is a curse and the Labour party has said that from the very beginning, ever since it was formed—but it is also a question of having adequate wages.
The reasons for the sort of poverty experienced in places such as my constituency are easy to see: low wages, wage freezes, rising everyday costs, not least of domestic fuel—and let us not forget for one moment the infamous bedroom tax. I am very pleased that we have already given a firm pledge that that notorious measure will be repealed by the next Labour Government. A lot has been said by Opposition Members, and rightly so, about the abuse arising from zero-hours contracts.
For those Government Members who say that this is all an exaggeration and that poverty does not exist at anywhere near this level—
Mr Winnick
I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Let me mention one statistic that has been sent to all Members by the Trussell Trust, which, as we all know, provides food banks: in 2013-14, nearly 1 million people received three days of emergency food from that trust alone—there are other such food banks—whereas the figure for 2012-13 was 347,000. In one financial year, there has been a 163% increase in the number of people needing to go to food banks. People do not go to food banks for fun. They do not go to food banks because it is free food, as some Government Members wish us to believe. People cannot just go to a food bank and get food; they have to have a voucher and satisfy someone that there is a need for that assistance, and there is a limit to the number of times one can receive food from a food bank. The Trussell Trust’s figures illustrate what is happening.
In a report published last month, the charity Save the Children referred to the fact that, under current policies, there will be an increase in the number of poor children. The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that, under existing policies, there will be a one third rise in child poverty by 2020. That should concern us all.
I was pleased and proud in December 1997 to support a national minimum wage, which was fiercely opposed by the Tories. So passionate was their denunciation of that policy, they gave every reason against it. That was an excellent and necessary measure, but we have to build on it and have a decent living wage. There is no reason why, in a prosperous society such as ours, millions of people should have to live in the circumstances I have described.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
One always wonders whether the Opposition have actually learned anything while in opposition, and listening to the shadow Secretary of State gave some indication of whether they have or not. I have had some useful conversations recently with Lord Turnbull, who, as Cabinet Secretary, was the senior civil servant and, I would argue, has some understanding of how national fiscal policy operates. He kindly pointed out table 4.1 of the “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses” to me, which shows that when Labour was in office, while there was an upswing, public expenditure increased as a proportion of GDP. If anyone is interested, I have put the figures on my web log, linked to a Google Docs analysis that demonstrates how Labour started over- spending.
Much though people on the continent, such as the President of France, may have taken the view that one can spend one’s way out of bankruptcy, after a period in office I think President Hollande concluded that actually one cannot spend one’s way out of bankruptcy—that the additional GDP from the spending does not give an adequate tax take.
That leaves us in a situation where we cannot change things rapidly. A very big deficit cannot be reduced to zero overnight, because of the economic disruption that that causes. The shadow Secretary of State complains that we have borrowed a lot of money, but we have done so because there was a big deficit. Every year, one borrows the amount of the deficit, which adds to the debt, and one cannot change that rapidly, either by putting up taxes or by cutting spending to bring the accounts back into balance, because the disruption from that causes additional problems. The fact that he complains about something that is obviously there on a simple, basic mathematical point shows that Labour has learned nothing.
The hon. Gentleman’s refusals to clarify for me Labour’s plan to get rid of the intermediate apprenticeship is also symptomatic of a substantial problem. Scrutinising the Deregulation Bill, Opposition Members happily stood up and said, “Let’s get rid of the intermediate apprenticeship,” of which there are about half a million in this country; they did not think about the consequences for the people affected. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman gave a one-word answer on that subject and would not clarify, so one has to assume that the Opposition’s detailed policy remains the same: they do not want intermediate apprenticeships. Well, I do want intermediate apprenticeships; they are a good route into work.
There we have two basic examples in which it appears that the Opposition have learned nothing. In government, we are making progress and dealing with matters that require a long-term plan—we cannot do it based on a short-term plan—but there are issues to be worried about.
I worry about the statistical basis of poverty analysis. I see individual cases of people who are really struggling. I see people who have been wrongly sanctioned and, happily, at times I have been able to resolve the sanctions. There are problems with the system—it can have a knock-on effect on housing, which it should not have. I know that the Government are trying, through the universal credit system, to introduce a more supportive system, which is more about encouraging compliance than punishing people, but we are still operating the older system, which is causing problems.
Everyone who is on tax credits and at the bottom end of the market is included, but we have to remember that people who are not officially in poverty in other countries migrate here to enter our work and tax credits system. Should they be lumped in with the people who are having to attend food banks because they were wrongfully sanctioned? I do not think they should. When the statistics conflate those different circumstances—people who are coming to this country to participate on that basis and people who are really suffering—they make a mistake. We need to work as a Government to reduce the suffering that comes from, say, wrongful sanctions and to help people who are having great difficulty making ends meet, but we should not conflate the different circumstances. If we get the statistical analysis wrong, it is meaningless.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate.
This year’s Queen’s Speech is one that fails the people of North Ayrshire and Arran and fails the people of this country. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that there are only 11 Bills, but I do not take much comfort from that because I remember the last parliamentary Session. There were many pieces of legislation covering many matters, but there was little discussion or time given to enable this place to scrutinise effectively the range of measures that were forced through by the Government. When the Secretary of State referred to the small business Bill and the range of measures in it, my response was one of fear about what will exactly be in the Bill when we see it in its full glory.
The reality is that our country faces massive challenges. We face the massive challenge of responding to an economic crisis and to the austerity that is being imposed not only on the people of this country, but throughout Europe and the western world, yet there is little discussion of that in this place.
The Secretary of State spoke about statistics and referred—quite interestingly—to the 99%. He accepted that the vast majority of people in this country are paying the price of the economic crisis and he also conceded that the 1% are doing very nicely. Of course, that is not just the case in this country. As we look around, we see that it is the case throughout the western world, whether that is in Greece, Ireland, Portugal—it is true in any country that people choose to look at. The super-rich, those who are really in control of many of the decisions that affect most of our lives, are seeing their wealth and power increase, while most of us have been put in a position where our living standards have been squeezed by the economic crisis and the way politicians have responded to it.
I am pleased today to speak in favour of the amendment that has been tabled by the Opposition Front Bench team to bring forward measures to raise the minimum wage faster than average earnings. We know that the measures that this Government have introduced have led to a squeeze in the living standards of the vast majority of people in this country, and when proposals are put forward to try to address that situation—for example, the proposal of a price freeze for people’s energy bills, whether those are electricity or gas bills, which would obviously affect not only individuals but businesses—the Government react with horror. They also react with horror when it is suggested that we should do something to try to deal with the private rental market, even though in parts of the country rents are increasing at far higher rates than people’s incomes.
The reality is that since this Government took power, in all but two months real wages have failed to keep pace with inflation. Indeed, after the welcome real-terms increase in pay in March, there was another fall in April. As we know, the Living Wage Commission has highlighted that 21% of people in work in this country— 5.8 million people—receive less than the living wage. Therefore, the amendment that we are considering today clearly outlines the direction of travel we should be taking and we need to say that it is simply not acceptable that we continue to be a country where there is chronic low pay and where people are not paid a decent amount that they can afford to live on if they work full-time. That is not an acceptable way to organise ourselves in a civilised country.
The Government can put forward proposals that refer to welfare caps and fiscal responsibility, but until we put in place the measures that put the pounds into ordinary people’s pockets and give them the ability to make decisions for themselves and live in dignity, we will not address the real issues.
This Queen’s Speech fails the British people; I look forward to voting against it.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Along with many hon. Members, I welcome the unemployment statistics released today. I note that in my own constituency unemployment has come down, both on the year and on the month, which is to be welcomed alongside the drops nationally in both the long-term unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate.
I also welcome the national insurance cut of £2,000 for businesses, which has contributed to businesses taking people on. I note of course that the Opposition have refused to say whether they would rule out reversing that change if they were in government.
In the Gracious Address, I particularly welcome the child care Bill, which will continue to make it possible for women to go into the workplace, and for men and women to share their child care responsibilities between them as they think best for their own circumstances.
I also welcome the small business Bill, which the Secretary of State spoke about earlier today. I particularly welcome measures in that Bill that support entrepreneurs. In a discussion that I had only yesterday, I came across an extremely interesting statistic. I understand that by the 2025 general election, for the first time since the second world war, the self-employed will outnumber public sector employees. That is not only extremely interesting electorally speaking but is, of course, exactly why we need to use a Bill such as the small business Bill to back entrepreneurs and all that they wish to do for themselves, their families and the jobs that they may create in the future.
Charlie Elphicke
A policy that I have been setting out before now is to have a really light-touch regime for the taxation and regulation of start-up businesses, whereby it will basically cost nothing whatever to set up a business. What does my hon. Friend think of that idea to drive entrepreneurship?
Chloe Smith
I strongly welcome that point and the Government could do well to examine my hon. Friend’s idea.
A subject that my hon. Friend and I have spoken about in the past is the other phenomenon that will happen by the 2025 general election. It is that generation Y —to talk in generational terms—will become a competitive part of the electorate compared with the baby boomers. Of course, I am talking about generation Y and all those who come behind them; I think that hon. Members will understand that concept.
I am not seeking to stir up any form of strife between generations; I do not think that would be productive. I mentioned jobs news and I wish to hail the work in my own constituency of the Norwich for Jobs campaign, which has brought about impressive results for young workers. However, I also wish to refer to the needs of older workers who will no doubt remain in the work force. I have met several 50-somethings in my constituency surgery to talk about exactly that issue.
In passing, I will say that I welcome the pensions Bill laid out in the Queen’s Speech, which will allow pensioners to have far more control and freedom over what they choose to do with their savings.
I will take a moment or two to talk about the way in which our politics and indeed our economy need to change, so as to adapt to generation Y and its needs in the coming years. The Queen’s Speech sets out a basis for that change.
Benjamin Disraeli spoke about there being two different planets and we might ask whether there are still two different planets. He spoke about rich and poor, but in fact the figures suggest that there is a gap between older voters and younger non-voters. That gap is an important one and it should concern us all.
I hear some people say that generation Y—younger voters—will simply bounce into the same habits that previous younger generations may have had. However, three things have changed: when asked, this generation reports having less interest in traditional politics than others; it has less belief that voting is a civic duty; and it has less affiliation with parties. That all adds up to an existential change for British democracy. The UK is worse than other countries in this regard; it is indeed the sick man of Europe and it does not compare well with the US either. Young people vote less than their elders elsewhere, but Britain’s problem in this respect has got worse.
That should concern us, but it also gives us an opportunity. We can look at research by Demos, which shows that these younger people look to themselves to take action, and to businesses, charities and action groups to achieve things in their chosen community. Indeed, the state comes a long way down that list. Generation Y, like any other group, backs its own values and aspirations. I want politics in Britain to work for the members of that generation and I want the principles of the small state, responsible economics, freedom, enterprise and social liberalism to come through for them.
First-time voters in 2015 may have an aversion to formal, professional politics, but they are interested in community affairs and they are doing great things in their communities. What are the right things that the Government should do to respond? They should focus on the economy, on education and indeed on those major intergenerational issues that I have mentioned. The Conservatives in government have a good record in that regard: honesty in public finances; more jobs, and a plan to go further with the tax cut in April 2015 for businesses employing under-21s; house building; reform of welfare; and the ambitious work at the Cabinet Office to make public services work for people. We have this record that we can be proud of; we should aspire to do more; and the Conservative party can be this party for the future. The Queen’s Speech delivers results. People should judge us on those results and young people can do the same.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
There are few issues of more primary importance to our constituents’ lives and our wider economic health than jobs and work. After the deepest recession for a century, the economy, however tentatively, is improving. The news today of another fall in unemployment should be welcomed across the House. I am especially pleased to see the highest level of women’s employment in Scotland since records began. I am also pleased to note a further fall in unemployment in Banff and Buchan.
Nevertheless, employment is still not back to its pre-recession levels. We should all be concerned about some of the significant challenges lurking beneath the surface figures. The first of these is youth unemployment, which remains unacceptably high. I came of age in the 1980s, when mass unemployment left a generation of school leavers languishing on the dole. I remember how that was not only soul destroying for the individuals affected, but destructive of our whole social fabric. Unfortunately, I see the same mistakes and oversights being repeated before our eyes. Youth unemployment is still around 18% across the UK. The economy is recovering and employment is growing in the wider labour market, but young people are not seeing the benefits.
The scale of the problem and its potentially long-term consequences should shake the Government out of any sense of complacency. In Scotland, the modern apprenticeships scheme has meant that 77,000 new apprentices have had an opportunity over the past three years, and the follow-up shows that 92% of them remain in work six months after completion, the vast majority of it full-time. Additionally, the opportunities for all scheme has offered a training position, a work placement or an educational place for every single 16 to 19-year-old in Scotland.
However, from 2014 a new programme of EU funds becomes available to enable member states to deliver a youth guarantee that would offer those opportunities to any young person up to the age of 24. These additional resources would enable the extension of the opportunities for all scheme to other young adults. I would be keen to know what use the Government intend to make of that funding so that all our young citizens can benefit from the EU youth guarantee.
It is clear, however, that we still have an awful lot of work to do. The interim report of the Commission for Developing Scotland’s Young Workforce, chaired by Sir Ian Wood, highlighted the need for schools, colleges and employers to work much more closely together to equip young people for the workplace and to ensure that vocational education meets their needs and those of the labour market. The report also highlighted the need to tackle inequalities, whether the barriers faced by disabled youngsters and minority ethnic groups or the chronic cross-cutting inequality associated with occupational gender segregation.
In my constituency I have seen a lot of good practice, for example in the North East Scotland college in Fraserburgh, which is working with local employers and schools to create pathways for young people into work. Only a couple of weeks ago I presented prizes to pupils from Mintlaw academy who won this year’s Technology Challenge, a competition run by the college, sponsored by several energy and manufacturing companies and involving second-year pupils from schools across northern Aberdeenshire. The competition is a model of good practice because it involves all the pupils in the early years of secondary school, before they make their subject choices, with a view to making them aware of the excellent career opportunities open to those with qualifications in science, technology, engineering and maths. Importantly, the competition insists on the equal participation of girls.
That leads me neatly on to the other key issue I want to address today: the persistent gap between male and female earnings, even 40 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970. Occupational gender segregation continues to be a problem, and too many women are in low-paid, part-time or insecure work. I do not think that anyone would pretend that these problems are easy to resolve, but I would like to have seen the Government attempt to make more headway. As I have said before in the House, the austerity measures of the past few years have fallen wholly disproportionately on women, to a large extent because women are more likely to have caring roles, to be in part-time or low-paid work and to be in receipt of tax credits.
The availability of affordable child care is an acute issue for parents combining work with family life, but we have seen only this week how parents are falling foul of the Department for Work and Pensions’ new sanctions regime, which is making it impossible for some parents to meet their family commitments. This is carers week and it is also important to acknowledge the role that carers play in providing social care and the impact that has on their employment prospects.
It has become a truism of political discourse to say that work is the route out of poverty—indeed, the Prime Minister said it twice this afternoon. Of course, at the most obvious level, well-paid, full-time work is a route out of poverty, but over recent decades rapidly increasing wage inequality has meant the rise of the working poor. For those in minimum-wage jobs who are unable to secure full-time hours, in-work poverty has become a new reality. We are in a situation in which a family with two children, paying average rent, with both parents working full time in low-paid jobs, will be a family on the breadline. If the minimum wage had kept pace with inflation, those in the lowest paid jobs would be over £600 a year better off. We need to acknowledge that the minimum wage is no longer a living wage and that it needs to catch up with the cost of living.
Meeting these substantial challenges requires strategic interventions and a willingness to try innovative approaches, so I am disappointed that the Gracious Speech failed to address youth unemployment—
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of the Queen’s Speech, which contains several measures that will impact positively on employment. The Gracious Speech builds on a record of achievement: the deficit will be cut by 50% this year; unemployment is down from the 8.4% that the Government inherited to 6.6%, as announced today; and our economy is growing faster than that of any other country in the G7 and across the European Union. Unsurprisingly, business and consumer confidence has returned.
There have been difficult decisions and people have made many sacrifices to bring about this economic turnaround: people working in the public sector have endured pay freezes or redundancies; people relying on savings have endured low interests rates that have been vital to the recovery; and many private sector employees have voted to take a salary cut, to safeguard employment among the wider group. Let their sacrifices not have been in vain. We on the Government side of the House, as evidenced in the Queen’s Speech, will work hard to ensure that there is no return to boom and bust or to tax and spend, when “more of” was the answer to every question and every challenge.
Earlier this week, I hosted a reception in Parliament for the Federation of Small Businesses. This year is its 40th anniversary. I am proud to represent so many specialist manufacturing companies in Stourbridge, particularly in Quarry Bank, Lye and Cradley. Most of them are family firms that have excellent employee relations, but their main concern is that their employees are ageing and they will have to replace that skilled work force.
I run a programme in my constituency to encourage young people to broaden their career horizons. I lay on university, apprenticeship and career events, and I always aim to get across the opportunities in engineering and manufacturing. Employment in the manufacturing sector declined from 5.7 million to 4.3 million between 1981 and 1996, and then it plummeted by 2.5 million up to 2011. Finally, after 30 years of continuous decline, the number of people employed in manufacturing is on the increase again, up by almost 100,000 since 2011. That is proof that the strategy of rebalancing the economy towards manufacturing and regions outside the south-east is working.
The problem for the sector is the image of manufacturing and engineering in the minds of so many young people, especially girls. That has been a problem for most of my life; it is nothing new. What is new is the opportunity in the sector. I have mentioned the growth in jobs, but output is also buoyant, with growth of over 4.4% in the past 12 months. Technological advances, innovation and export opportunities make for a very different working environment from the machine tool business that my father ran in Wolverhampton during the 1970s. We have a shortfall of 40,000 engineers every year. Several Members have mentioned women in the workplace. Fewer than one in 10 engineers is a woman. If we could treble the number studying science, technology, engineering and maths, we could really address the skills shortage.
Today’s news on employment is an excellent platform from which the measures in the Queen’s Speech can impact even more on people’s employment opportunities. I hope that with the help of businesses, schools and colleges, we can transform the image of manufacturing and engineering and attract the talent that the sector needs further to boost the economy and add to the great work that it has been doing over the past few years.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I absolutely agree with the measures proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) in his opening speech. I say that not just to dissipate the impression of disloyalty that I might have created by an article in the Daily Mail this morning, but because those measures will restore what we desperately need in this country—more stability in the labour market. We have had a long period in which wages have increased by less than inflation in 46 of the past 47 months of statistics since the coalition came to office. That has to be ended, because it is creating a very undesirable kind of society. It is the kind of society described by Professor Piketty—or I should say, because he is French, Professor Piketté—in his book, “Capital”.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Ellwood
I know that time stands still when the hon. Gentleman speaks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the clock does not seem to be moving, and I wonder whether it is possible to make sure that the time limit is placed on it.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That absolutely is a point of order, Mr Ellwood, and I am very grateful to you. The clock has to be operated manually at the moment, so we will do our best to make sure that it works.
Austin Mitchell
If it is any consolation, Madam Deputy Speaker, my clock stopped in 1979. I hope that that qualifies me for an extension of my speaking time.
This kind of society where wealth accumulates and wages and salaries fall as a share of GDP is very undesirable. As Goldsmith put it,
“wealth accumulates, and men decay”.
And it is an economically inefficient society, because purchasing power and stimulus to the economy, then growth, come from the purchasing power of the masses, not the classes. If we are transferring more money to the classes, we will have a slow-growing, stagnant economy. Under the policy pursued by this Government, the only real long-term plan is to slash public spending, benefits and the living standards of the working classes, to transfer money to tax cuts for the rich. The theory is that this will stimulate enterprise and money will trickle down to the poor and the working class, in the same way that the trickle-down effect of horses improves roads. That is the plan, and it is a disastrous development for our economy.
I agree with the proposed measures on raising the minimum wage, promoting the living wage and improving skills, but other measures need to be taken as well. The only real solution to the problem is economic growth to put the people back to work, because full employment is the only adequate form of social security that we have ever developed in this country. That means, first, a massive house-building programme, particularly one of public housing for rent that people can move into, because most people now cannot afford a mortgage and could not get one if they tried. That could be financed by municipal bonds or quantitative easing. Why should the money from quantitative easing—which is, in effect, the Bank of England printing money—all go into the vaults of the banks? Why should it not be used to finance contracts for massive public spending and investment in work on new towns, for instance, provided that there are proper contracts and a proper rate of return? We should use quantitative easing to improve public spending.
Austin Mitchell
I am not giving way—I am sorry. I am having my time extended as an incentive to carry on next year.
Secondly, we should expand public spending generally. What is the problem with borrowing? In a recession, we need to borrow to stimulate the economy. Keynesian economics still works. Why are we so reticent about borrowing more to spend, to stimulate growth? Only in a growth situation can we pay back the debt.
Thirdly, we should boost exports by getting the pound down to a more competitive level. It has risen by nearly 10% in the past few months, and it needs to be more competitive if our exports are to be stimulated.
We need to take all those measures to expand the real economy as well as the measures to deal with the labour market that we are discussing. I appeal to the Government to get rid of their restrictive attitude and start thinking about expansion. I ask my Front Benchers to be less cautious and timorous about capital. Let us expand, grow, and get the people back to work.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow such a passionate speech by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I share his passion for full employment. It is a pleasure to speak on the day the claimant count in Worcester is more than 1,000 fewer than it was at the time of the general election and youth unemployment has halved since its peak under Labour in 2009. As a result of raising the tax threshold, more of those people who have found work will keep more of the money they earn, which we should all celebrate.
As a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—I very much enjoyed my Chairman’s speech earlier on apprenticeships and pubs, which are two areas on which we are making progress—I am delighted that jobs and work are at the heart of the Gracious Speech and particularly welcome the small business Bill. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and it is to the credit of this coalition Government that we have seen increasing numbers of businesses starting up, employing and expanding. Worcester has a very lively small business community, and one of my greatest pleasures as its MP has been to visit some of the entrepreneurial businesses starting up and then see them grow and take on jobs and apprentices.
It has been right to reduce the tax burden on small businesses as well as on the people who work in them, and the Gracious Speech commits us to continue to do that by talking about the need to
“cut taxes in order to increase people’s financial security.”
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is an outstanding member of the BIS Committee. Does he agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) has said—when he said that his clock stopped in ’79, I thought he meant 1479—the one thing we need to do to get businesses employing and growing is not to print more money, but to trust them, tax them less and cripple them less with bureaucracy, unlike the previous Government, who between 2007 and 2008 imposed more bureaucracy costing £10 billion?
Mr Walker
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who has been a truly outstanding member of the Committee. We will miss her if she goes on to greater things.
One of the ways in which we have removed a burden from small businesses and the people who work for them is by freezing fuel duty not just once, but throughout this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has campaigned very hard to achieve that and I congratulate him on his success.
In this Parliament, I am very proud to have supported the scrapping of Labour’s jobs tax, the introduction of the employment allowance and the extension of doubled small business rates relief. The Gracious Speech takes forward that legacy, but business rates are one area on which I would have been keen to see the Government go further. I warmly welcome the decisions taken in last year’s autumn statement to provide extra discounts to small retail businesses and to initiate a consultation on how the valuation office and appeals system could be improved. However, our Committee recently concluded in its excellent report on the retail sector that fundamental reform was needed:
“Clear, decisive action needs to be taken. If there is one thing that this Report urges the Government to do, it is to reform Business Rates. For retail, and other enterprises, to continue on the High Street, the Business Rates system must be addressed urgently.”
Such reform should make the system more responsive, allow for more regular revaluations, faster appeals, incentives for growing businesses that create jobs and reduce the unfair burden borne by the retail sector.
Although I regret the omission of a business rates reform Bill from the Gracious Speech, I welcome the inclusion of a number of other business-friendly Bills, particularly the small business Bill, which the Federation of Small Businesses nationally and—perhaps more importantly to me—in Worcestershire has warmly welcomed. John Allan, the national chairman of the FSB, has said:
“This landmark Bill will…be welcomed by our members.”
Local businesses have told me that they would particularly welcome measures to encourage prompt payment and a tightening up of what has so far been largely a voluntary code. I have taken evidence as part of cross-party work on some of the problems with late payment that affect many small businesses, and there are sectors, including construction, where not just encouraging but mandating better behaviour would make a massive difference.
Local businesses will also welcome an even greater focus on helping small businesses to access finance. It is good news that the Government should be ensuring that banks automatically pass on customers to alternative lenders when they are turned down for credit. That should encourage the growth of crowdfunding and support the development of community development financial institutions, such as Impetus, which helps many companies in Worcestershire.
Procurement is certainly an area in which the Government can do more to help small businesses. I am delighted that since 2009-10, the value of Government procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises has risen by almost 50% to £4.5 billion, but there is much further to go. That figure is still only just more than 10% of overall public procurement, or 19% if we include the supply chain. This Government have rightly set out to make the figure at least a quarter. Other countries, such as Germany and the US, seem to be able to support a higher proportion of Government procurement from SMEs, and we must do all we can to learn from their example.
This legislative programme also sets out to do something that previous Governments failed to do and that too many small businesses feel they have had to police for themselves, which is toughen up enforcement of the minimum wage. I am proud that this Government have decided to increase the minimum wage above inflation and that they have done so in a way that has kept the support of the business community, but I am also determined that the disreputable minority who flout the rules do not benefit from doing so. Most companies I speak to want to do the right thing, but they expect to be able to compete fairly by doing so, and not to be undercut.
Yesterday, members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee met some Members of the German Bundestag to discuss their debate about introducing a national minimum wage. One suggestion to come out of that discussion was that enforcement could be linked to Government procurement, with any company proved to have failed to pay the minimum wage named and shamed by the Government and barred from winning Government contracts. I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will consider doing that.
Similarly, I am pleased that this Government, unlike their predecessor, are taking real action on zero-hours contracts. It is good news that the majority of jobs created have been full-time ones. Yet where there has been growth in zero-hours contracts, that matter has been taken seriously by the Government, and legislation affecting this area will be introduced.
In dealing with fairness, we need to continue this Parliament’s valuable work to limit the cost of, and to regulate, high-cost credit. I was pleased to welcome the Chancellor’s actions on this in the Budget. I recently attended meetings with the Church of England and the Financial Conduct Authority, which, in their different ways, are taking forward their respective duties. I want to see further progress on real-time data sharing across the industry and more support for the free debt advice sector, with the cap—when it comes—set at a level that will alleviate the many problems that high-cost credit can cause. I was honoured, alongside my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), to be named the Citizens Advice parliamentarian of the year for my work on this front, but there is still more to be done.
I welcome this Queen’s Speech and its measures to create greater prosperity and more jobs in this country. I hope that those measures will have their full effect in Worcester, and I look forward to fighting Worcester’s corner in the year ahead.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been troubled, particularly in the past few months, by the growing disconnect between the politics in this House or the constitutional politics of the referendum in Scotland and the real-life experiences of our constituents. With wage growth yet to take hold in any sustained way after the longest period of falling real wages in our history, and with productivity remaining weak and investment low, it is no wonder that claims made by Ministers in this House about a recovery for all count for so little with real Britain.
This Queen’s Speech was this Government’s last opportunity to deal with the huge underlying problems in our society that mean, as the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), admitted in a rare bout of candour from this Government, that ordinary people are not experiencing any kind of recovery in their living standards. The failure of this Government over the four Queen’s Speeches of this Parliament will make even worse the sense of alienation that people feel in communities up and down this country.
However, my discussions with 2,500 constituents on the doorstep in the past month have shown me that people have not given up. Civil society is helping to fill the yawning gaps that this Government are leaving—for example, with the explosion in the use of food banks. They need and deserve a Government who are listening, have a plan for change and are in touch with their lives.
Just as it was Labour in opposition in 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997 that offered hope that Britain could be better, so it falls to Labour Members now to speak up for the millions of ordinary people who yearn for change and yearn for them to be their voice. In this debate, let us be the voice for the 1.4 million people in this country, including the 120,000 in Scotland, who work part time but need full-time work because of declining wages. Let us be the voice for the tens of thousands of young people suffering for years on end from mass unemployment whom I have encountered in my constituency in the past few months. Let us be the voice for the low-paid and low-skilled workers who need a workplace skills revolution to boost their wages now and to secure greater prospects for the future. Let us be the voice for the 5 million people in this country who go to work and do the right thing, but take home less than the living wage—working longer and longer hours, but finding less and less to show for it.
Mr Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the living wage. Will he join me in congratulating the six boroughs in London—all of them Labour—that are already living wage employers, and in welcoming Croydon’s intention to join them, now that Croydon also has a Labour council?
Mr Bain
I am most happy to congratulate Labour borough councils up and down the country on those efforts. That shows what Labour can do when it has power. It also shows the difference between the values of Labour and the Scottish National party at Holyrood, which had the opportunity to extend the living wage several weeks ago, but failed resoundingly in that task.
With three in 10 of my constituents who are in work taking home less than the living wage, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have changed the remit of the Low Pay Commission to raise the minimum wage in line with trends in average wages for the next five years.
A Queen’s Speech for the many would have begun the task of reorganising the banks to ensure that they serve ordinary people and businesses, not the other way around. There should be new challenger banks to introduce more competition in the retail banking sector; new regional banks to support SME lending, as the Sparkassen have done for decades in Germany; a national investment bank, modelled on the successes in Germany, France, the United States and South Korea; and an unshackled green investment bank that is able to drive investment in the renewables sector, with the potential to create tens of thousands of skilled jobs in our economy.
To secure fairness for the disadvantaged, there should have been a Bill to raise the taxes on bank bonuses to help pay for a jobs guarantee for long-term unemployed young people and other jobless people, who are crying out for the opportunity to work and who have been let down so badly by this Government and their Work programme. Perhaps when the Prime Minister was trying to rock the boat with Chancellor Merkel and the Swedish and Dutch Prime Ministers over the EU the other day, he should have taken a steer from them about how jobs guarantee policies in Sweden have benefited employers, given opportunities to young people and helped the public finances.
With 1.4 million people in insecure jobs with no guaranteed hours, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have offered the right to defined working hours after a short period in a job. People in Glasgow have told me about the uncertainty that a lack of guaranteed hours is causing them—uncertainty in their family finances, uncertainty over whether they can pay the bills and uncertainty in planning for a decent future.
Given the increasingly skewed jobs market and the lack of skilled service, construction and manufacturing jobs, a Queen’s Speech for the many would have contained measures to boost exports, which remain desperately weak, and to boost investment by businesses, particularly in research and development.
For a stronger recovery that reaches every part of these islands, we need a Queen’s Speech that expands opportunity, boosts incomes and cuts inequality. We need a fresh start and a new Government to replace this tired and clapped-out coalition—a Labour Government for the many, by the many and of the many.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s fourth Queen’s Speech and the strategy that has been used to navigate Britain out of the choppy economic waters that we inherited, courtesy of the last Labour Government. As we have heard, the UK economy is the fastest growing economy in Europe and, indeed, in the G7. Figures published today show that employment is at record levels, though of course there is still more to be done.
I am afraid that the clock is working now and the time restrictions will prevent me from going into further detail on certain issues. I will therefore move on to my substantive point, which is about Britain’s place in the world. The Prime Minister rightly began his response to the Gracious Speech with a tribute to our armed forces and the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan. That subject will come up at the forthcoming NATO summit. NATO can be proud of the role that it played in removing al-Qaeda from Afghanistan and building a credible Afghan security force.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
Britain has always been an outward-looking nation when it comes to trade and foreign affairs. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should continue with that and build on it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again; it is the second time that I have done so. However, this is a named debate with a subject and an amendment. The subject is jobs and work, so he needs to make sure that he focuses on that.
Mr Ellwood
I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding was that Members of Parliament could contribute to any day of the Queen’s Speech debate and give a consideration of all aspects of the Queen’s Speech. If I had been aware that that rule was in place, I certainly would not have chosen today to speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Ellwood, what has happened is that today we are considering an amendment. In the Queen’s Speech debates every day before today, Members could raise anything. Today’s debate is more focused, and to be in order speeches need to be about jobs and work. I hope that all other Members will focus on that, but, given the misunderstanding, on this occasion I will allow you to make your points, Mr Ellwood. I should make it absolutely clear that that is out of order, but given that you have been so helpful to me about the clock, it is only fair to let you make your points—perhaps briefly.
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for your latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, I understood that I could take a broad-brush approach to matters in the Queen’s Speech.
I return to our role in Afghanistan, which was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. NATO did well, but I am afraid that the other international agencies did not do so well. We were not good at creating the governance and economic development that were needed in that country. That responsibility was given to other international agencies and they were found wanting. Indeed, our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq now haunts this Chamber, as was shown in the Syria vote last year. It is also making us review Britain’s place and role in the world.
The nation’s attention has rightly focused on the UK economy, business and jobs as well as on strengthening the fundamental pillars of our society, including health, education and the benefits system. However, as we emerge from the biggest recession ever experienced, events such as 9/11, the Arab spring and, most recently, what has happened in Ukraine and the Sahel show that we have entered a prolonged period of instability with which I am not sure that Britain—and, indeed, NATO—has come to terms.
Conflict itself has also changed. There is no longer unconditional surrender, but agencies such as the EU, the Department for International Development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are involved in stabilisation and nation-building activities that they were never designed to perform. We are essentially winning the wars, but losing the peace.
In an increasingly interdependent world, as the Government’s national maritime strategy states:
“Almost every aspect of British national life… depends on our connections with the wider world.”
We are now more reliant on a stable market for raw materials, energy and manufactured goods from overseas, but recent trends such as globalisation, resource competition, population growth and climate change will challenge that stability, and developments and crises in distant regions will have an immediate and direct impact on our prosperity and security in this country.
As a nation, we have always led from the front in helping shape and influence the wider world. As I have implied, the pace of change has not only increased but become more complicated. In a week when we have been debating the importance of British values, we must also agree the extent to which those values should be defended here and abroad when challenged. There are ever fewer countries in the world that are willing and able to promote, support and, when required, defend our shared values.
However, there is an increasing number of regimes, organisations, groups and movements that wish us harm. It is therefore not the time to turn our back on the world and ignore events around us. This week alone, ISIS has taken control of Iraq’s second city, Mosul, while Boko Haram continues its reign of terror in Nigeria and the Taliban have retaken Karachi airport. Of course, there is also the continuing drama that is unfolding for the fourth year in Syria, not to mention Russia’s hiding its long-term economic weakness in aggression and deniable intervention. Those events do not happen in isolation.
The solutions to those challenges are diplomatic, economic and political as well as military. As we mark the 70th anniversary of D-day, many of the Bretton Woods organisations that were created to secure peace after the second world war, such as the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, are out of date and in severe need of reform. I believe that Britain is well placed in the international community to lead the call for the modernisation of those agencies so that they are fit for purpose in meeting 21st century challenges. However, we should also be prepared for instability to increase. I greatly welcome the manner in which the Government are moving Britain back to prosperity, but it is also time to think of the wider world and the role that Britain should play as we face a challenging chapter of instability.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Several Members have now approached the Chair, and I therefore think it is necessary for me to make it clear before I call the next speaker that today’s debate is focused on jobs and work. It is not the full, general debate that we have had on the previous days of considering the Queen’s Speech. It may be necessary for some Members to refocus their points so that they stay in order. Mr Ellwood did not have time to do that so he got more latitude than anyone else will get this afternoon. I hope that that is absolutely clear and that Members understand that we are debating the amendment on jobs and work. That is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions himself is here to listen to the debate.
Now that that is clear, I call Nick Smith.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In Blaenau Gwent, our local economy needs a big shot in the arm if we are to prosper. Adult unemployment is twice the national average, and we have a youth unemployment rate of 10%. Although unemployment has fallen, the pace of job creation is too slow. People in Blaenau Gwent want to work. We have talent, great potential, an illustrious industrial heritage, and many outdoor attractions.
Much work has been done in the past few years to bring a new motorsports circuit to Blaenau Gwent. It would have attendant engineering, leisure and research facilities, and would be a significant boost for employment in south-east Wales. I am aware that the Silverstone circuit has raised objections to the Circuit of Wales, including questioning the potential use of public funds. The previous Labour Government provided £8 million to speed up construction of the A43 bypass to help ease congestion near the Silverstone circuit, and Northamptonshire county council has also recently provided financial assistance, so I hope that the Government will be even-handed and fair when considering the Circuit of Wales and public support for it.
The key to securing good, sustainable jobs in Blaenau Gwent is infrastructure investment. There has, of course, been major investment in Blaenau Gwent, including improvements to the A465, the new Learning Zone and the Nye Bevan hospital, and we hope in the future rail electrification. In its report published last week, the Transport Committee stated:
“The under-funding of transport projects outside Greater London in recent years cannot be allowed to continue. No area across our nation should be second class in relation to the allocation of transport infrastructure funds.”
The same must be true for Wales. Electrification of the west coast main line to Swansea and all the valley lines is imperative. Last December I asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government would consider bringing forward the electrification of the south Wales valley lines as that would boost employment and regeneration in our deprived area. He said he would look at the case for accelerating electrification if possible, but I have heard nothing further.
Infrastructure investment in a home energy efficiency programme is a jobs-boosting measure that is missing from the Government’s plans in the Queen’s Speech. As an example of delivery in infrastructure investment, our social landlord in Blaenau Gwent, Tai Calon, will spend around £23 million by 2015 on tackling fuel poverty. It is installing external wall insulation and new heating systems across the county to help keep homes warmer and make them cheaper to heat. It also has a team of fuel advisers recruited from the local young unemployed who can visit tenants and show them how they can cut bills and use their systems more efficiently. The Treasury should take note.
As growth finally comes to the economy after four wasted years, we find ourselves with the persistent British problem: a skills shortage. We know that in Wales and elsewhere, in too many cases skilled jobs cannot be filled because the work force lack the relevant skills. We need to improve educational attainment. Our local training and education system in Blaenau Gwent has seen major investment in recent years, but it must up its game.
The Government must get their act together. Blaenau Gwent is a brilliant place, but although good progress has been made, much more investment in skills, infrastructure and jobs is needed for the future. I am concerned that the Gracious Speech will unfortunately be a damp squib for Blaenau Gwent.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I was just rewriting my speech in line with your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will forgive me—or perhaps you will be pleased—if it is shorter than I intended.
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I congratulate the Government on an excellent programme for the final year of this Parliament. It is, despite complaints from the Opposition, a continuation of the comprehensive programme for recovery that we have put in place over the past four years. The idea that it is a thin programme of legislation comes from the Labour party’s belief that all problems in our society can be cured by yet more regulation and legislation. My constituents hope that they can get on with their lives, care for their families and run their businesses without undue interference. Of course, they want good quality public services and we must ensure that they are adequately resourced, but that can be achieved only if we allow business to grow. From that growth, money flows into the Treasury and we get better public services.
In that respect, we are making progress. Last week I attended the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce Expo event, where businesses spoke of their optimism and confidence. The chamber’s chief executive, Ian Kelly, said in its most recent quarterly survey that
“the Chamber feels that the steady climb out of recession is continuing”.
As if to confirm that, when I returned to my constituency office the latest “Barclays Local Insights” was in my pile of post. Among the statistics relating to my Cleethorpes constituency was the fact that overall turnover for small businesses had risen by 15% in the first quarter of 2014 compared with the previous year, and that this is 6% above the national average. Small businesses in the retail sector saw their quarterly turnover increase by 20% compared with the first three months of 2013. Access to finance for small businesses is still a major concern in the local business community. I welcome moves to ensure further improvements. We must recognise, however, that although these figures are encouraging my constituents are still feeling the effects of the recession. The Barclays report states:
“The severe squeeze on household budgets is beginning to unwind as inflation abates and pay awards start to recover.”
I am pleased that the Government continue to recognise that. The continuing increases in personal allowances, the freezing of fuel duty and the help with energy bills, to name but three measures, all contribute to helping hard-pressed families.
Thanks to the efforts of the Government, working in partnership with our local enterprise partnerships and local authorities, much has been achieved to attract inward investment to northern Lincolnshire and the Humber region. The Siemens investment on the north bank is now secure. I am hopeful that the Able UK development, which is now subject to a special parliamentary procedure to determine the final outcome, will be resolved very soon. It is vital that this long-running saga is brought to a conclusion. It highlights yet again that, despite the efforts of the Government, we need to speed up the process for major planning applications. We risk being left behind by overseas competitors if we do not. For those objecting to developments, whose homes and property can be blighted by prolonged procedures, it is equally important.
I must pay tribute to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has responsibility for cities. His hard work in the north Lincolnshire and Humber region has won the respect of politicians across the political spectrum. He has put together a city deal that is vital for the area.
A consultation document published yesterday by the Department for Transport includes suggestions that would reduce dramatically the level of rail service or through-rail connections to major cities, most notably Manchester and Sheffield. If this is allowed to proceed, it would be a severe blow to the investment that is currently coming into the area.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition highlighted some of the most noticeable omissions from the coalition’s programme for this, the final year of its lifetime. He quite rightly mentioned what a missed opportunity the small business, enterprise and employment Bill represents to truly tackle low pay and insecurity. These are issues that result in so many hard-working people feeling left out, let down and left behind, and which resulted in what we saw, not for the first time, in May’s election: the disaffected’s vote for UKIP.
You will be glad to hear that I want to address my remarks to that Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, but when it comes to the responsibilities of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend might have mentioned another huge omission: the lack of a higher education fair reform Bill. We have a tuition fees system that, by the admission of one of the coalition’s own advisers, is simply not working—not for universities, not for students and not for the country.
On the employment Bill, it is clearly welcome that exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts will henceforth be banned. There will be cross-party support for that. Clauses that prevent employees on contracts from working for another employer, keeping them constantly on call with no guaranteed hours, are in many cases simply legalised servitude. However, the Bill should and could have gone further. The Government did not have far to look: last October we had a thoughtful debate in the House on zero-hours contracts which highlighted some of the most iniquitous examples of the practice. At the time of that debate, the Business Secretary launched a consultation, but the outcome in the Bill is frankly just timid.
The Business Secretary should go much further. He should, at a minimum, give workers a right to ask for normal employment contracts if they regularly work the same hours and a right to have a contract that specifies a minimum number of hours, to give vulnerable people at least a modicum of certainty and security. He should also ensure that workers on zero-hours contracts cannot simply be summoned outside their contracted hours and that they are entitled to be paid if shifts are unexpectedly cancelled at short notice. Likewise, the Business Secretary should give such workers the security of employment rights that many of us take for granted: the right to be given notice, rights against unfair dismissal and the right to redundancy pay. A flexible work force should never equate to an exploited work force.
There are other, related issues that the Bill should also tackle. The rights of part-time workers who regularly work longer hours need to be addressed, along with the continued insecurity faced by many agency workers. It is now seven long years since I was lucky enough to be successful in the ballot and to present the Temporary and Agency Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Bill, to try to level the playing field. I did not do so simply because it was supported by the big unions, such as Unite, of which I am a member, or my local ceramics union, Unity; I did it because time after time, decent, ordinary working people, and not a few students, had complained to me about being exploited by agencies, along with employees complaining about facing substitution by agency workers if they complained, asked for a pay rise or insisted on their rights. There were complaints, too, about how many workers who would work for less were being proactively recruited from eastern Europe. That was the insecurity that many people faced then and that they still face now, which manifested itself in a vote for a right-wing party, UKIP, that will benefit ordinary working people not one iota.
The agency workers directive eventually went through, but it was an imperfect compromise, with a 12-week qualification period in the UK, which affords workers here less protection than on the continent. It is a compromise that needs unstitching. Big loopholes such as the Swedish derogation need a really good darning. If the employment Bill does not go there, I hope the next Labour Government will do the necessary needlework.
One of the great strengths of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is that he has had the guts to admit where the Labour leadership got it wrong. We cannot have growth on the cheap without social and political consequences. We cannot have a recovery that leaves decent, ordinary people behind, insecure and struggling to make ends meet, while working all hours. This he has said many times since becoming leader. He said it to the voters in Thurrock last week; he also said it in the House last week in response to the Queen’s Speech. At the last election I was able to tell people what I was trying to do not only to level the playing field, but to raise the bar, and I support what my right hon. Friend has said about our aspirations for the minimum wage. The employment Bill should go much further to help ordinary working people to be treated more decently. I hope that during its passage we can improve it.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow a fellow Staffordshire Member to speak in the Queen’s Speech debate on jobs, particularly on what is, of course, a great day for jobs and for the job prospects of millions. It may not be such a good day for the job prospects of the Opposition Front-Bench team, which may be why they have spent rather less time than they might have done talking about today’s good news.
Today is good news for my town, and this Queen’s Speech is good news for Tamworth. The situation in which we now find ourselves compared with the situation in 2010 when we had our first Queen’s Speech could not be starker. In 2010, at the end of the last Labour Government, the unemployment rate in Tamworth was running into double digits; today, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. In 2010, at the end of the last Labour Government, one could walk down the Glascote road and see repossession notices on window after window as mortgage companies foreclosed on properties. Under the last Labour Government, people were losing not just their jobs, but their family homes. Those notices are now gone; growth is returning; hope is being restored. In my town, Jaguar Land Rover is recruiting; BMW is recruiting; John Lewis is recruiting. They are recruiting skilled workers because our educational outcomes are improving, with GCSE results going up, and the Torc centre has been named the automotive hub for Staffordshire.
I want to speak about this Queen’s Speech in relation to jobs, and I shall make three particular points. I am glad that Her Majesty made it clear that her Government will continue to cut taxes in order to increase people’s financial security. I hope that those tax cuts will also include business tax cuts—cuts in corporation tax and cuts in national insurance contributions. Small businesses are the engines of growth in this country—not Governments, not multinationals, but small businesses up and down the country. We need to reduce the burden of taxation on them so that they can expand, invest and create more jobs.
I was also pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about deregulation and cutting red tape. We have to get on and go even further. I rather hope that the Government will look at regulation as if it were a tax. A small business man may have to juggle the responsibilities of being IT director, finance director and HR director with the all-important task of being sales director. Any Government activity that detracts from the ability to focus on selling or any Government activity that is a tax on time is a tax on business—and it is in those terms that we should think of regulation. I am astonished that we still have so many regulations. There is even a regulation on how to build a staircase. It seems to me that if we were to get rid of that regulation, carpenters up and down the country would not be left helpless. We do not need many of the regulations under which businesses still appear to labour, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue his work on that.
I was pleased to see further help being given to the exploitation of our shale gas opportunities. It is unfortunate that the Labour Opposition seem to blow hot and cold on shale gas. In the Finance Bill Committee, the Front-Bench team did not seem to know quite what they wanted with respect to shale gas. I believe that shale gas opportunities in our country could create between 60,000 and 70,000 new jobs. It could create billions of pounds of extra revenue to the Exchequer, which could be invested in infrastructure, creating even more jobs. If the Opposition are serious about the cost of living challenges facing our country, they should surely embrace a resource that will help to even out the cost of our energy. The fact that they seem to refuse to do so seems to make their position illogical.
Christopher Pincher
I will not. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, many Members want to speak: they have things to say—or think they have things to say—and they should be allowed to say them.
In conclusion, this Queen’s Speech helps my town. It drives growth, it drives opportunity and it drives forward our long-term economic plan—and we are the only Government, the only party, who seem to have one.
Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) set out his stall in his opening speech, describing what is happening to the British economy and referring to the constant refrain from Government Members about a “long-term economic plan”. The definition of “long-term” seems to have changed: we used to be told that it would take five years to get rid of the deficit, but we are not sure whether that is still the case. We have not had plan A from this Government; what we have had at best, or at worst, is plan A minus. If they had gone the whole hog and given us plan B, rather than choking off recovery in 2010 by making cuts in the public sector that were too deep and making them too quickly, some of the pain that my constituents have endured over the last four years might have been avoided.
Since we returned from the recess, I have heard the Prime Minister declare on two occasions that work is the best route out of poverty, but that is not an absolute truth. The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) spoke of the role of the state and her preference for the small state, and claimed that the state did not have as much impact on people’s lives as other sectors. I can tell her that in my constituency, East Lothian council, which has a coalition with the Conservatives, has introduced a living wage for all workers. I confess that only a small number of workers are benefiting from that, but surely it is an example of the role of the state. Although it is absolutely right for us in the Chamber to welcome better economic news and the fact that the number of people in jobs is increasing, we must also ensure that no one is left behind in that recovery, which is not what is happening on this Government’s watch.
Back in 1997, we too inherited difficult and testing economic circumstances, but what that Labour Government did during their three terms was look out for those who needed the protection of the state and needed the state to intervene by, for instance, introducing tax credits or the minimum wage. That progress has simply not continued under the present Government.
I am glad that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is present, because in the short time allowed to me I want to say a little about some of those people who are in danger of being left behind. People with disabilities and, in particular, those with moderate learning disabilities fear that they will miss out on the new personal independence payment. At present they receive the lowest rate of the care component of disability living allowance, but those who receive it as an in-work benefit cannot sustain employment without it. It is what pays for the taxi if they do not feel able to take the bus to work. There is a real danger that those people will now find it harder to maintain employment, or to find new employment. I am not saying that we should not celebrate the good news that there is in the economy, but I am saying that we must not leave people behind in the recovery.
The same applies to exploitative zero-hours contracts. The other day I was approached in the supermarket by someone who works in the tourism and leisure sector. I think that it is indicative of something when people do not want to name themselves, or even their employers, because they are so scared of losing their jobs. This employee has been on a zero-hours contract job for two years, working the same shift patterns. He is tied into accommodation, and even his meals are provided by his employer. It almost seems like some sort of modern form of slavery when people in this country are not free because they rely on their employers not just for their incomes, but for the roof over their heads and the food that they put in their mouths.
The Government need to do more to protect those workers. If you—or someone like you, Madam Deputy Speaker—had been doing a zero-hours contract job for two years with the same shift patterns, surely you would have expected, long before you reached that stage, to be given a proper contract of employment giving you protection under the law, and all the other benefits of employment. We have waited so many decades to secure those benefits for workers in this country; surely they should be available to them now.
The married couple’s tax allowance is the one bit of help for workers that the Government have come up with recently. However, it is another of their divisive policies, implying that certain members of society are more deserving of their help than others. The Government should recognise that a large number of people—regardless of their marital status—are missing out on the early recovery, and I urge them to do more to ensure that no one is left behind.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I support the Queen’s Speech and, in particular, the work of the Department for Work and Pensions, which is engaged in nothing less than a moral crusade, a war on unemployment, a war for work and a war to defeat poverty. We all know that the best way to cure deprivation is a job and the best way to reduce poverty is work. Today, I have heard so much from the Labour party about how the Government do not care enough about the least well-off. As Labour Members talk about the ills of everything, they remind me of Jack Frost denying the coming of spring, yet each day the sun rises that bit higher and shadows are thrown back that bit further as the economy and employment continue to improve and as unemployment continues to fall.
The numbers on poverty are encouraging, too. Let us be honest. In the previous Parliament, under the last Labour Government, poverty rose. It is falling under the Conservatives. Under Labour, child poverty rose. It is falling under the Conservatives. Under Labour, inequality rose and it has been falling under the Conservatives. Before the crash, under Labour, 9.8% of people were reporting that they did not have enough money to buy food, according to OECD figures. Today, the figure is 8.1%. That is still too high but it is moving in the right direction. I hope that food poverty will continue to fall under this Government, who are engaged in a crusade against poverty, want and need because they believe in the power, importance and value of work, and the poverty-fighting aspects and dignity that work can bring.
Under Labour, youth unemployment rose and it has been falling under the Conservatives. Under Labour, economic inactivity—people doing nothing—rose and it has been falling under the Conservatives. Under Labour, long-term unemployment rose and it has been falling under the Conservatives. However, it is not enough. I have a vision of the future that we can build under a Conservative Government after 2015: a Britain moving further towards economic success and a work revolution, particularly through the promotion and fostering of small businesses, and through making it easier to have a light-touch regulatory system where one can set up an enterprise at no cost. I hope that the small business Bill will deal with that.
It is important that we give young people a better future. Under Labour, nearly 2 million more people went into renting. Young people’s futures were stolen by Labour’s buy-to-let policy and its promotion of buy-to-let landlords. That was a disgrace. It was wrong that, in 2000, 2 million households were in rent and that, by the time Labour left office, about 3.4 million were in rent. That took away the futures of our young people. We should give them their futures back, so I want more action to disincentivise buy-to-letting—it is too incentivised today through the tax system—and to incentivise owner-occupation. We should give back to our young people the chance, hope and aspiration that owning one’s home brings, which the previous Government took away. It was wrong. It was a shame for Labour to do that. We need to promote work for our young people. We need to promote home ownership and owner-occupation for our young people to give them those things. We need to build a society that is fairer and more just.
I have powerfully made the case for tackling tax avoidance. We must tackle want through welfare reform. We must tackle welfare tourism, too. It is important that we make our borders secure to give our young people a greater chance. For the Labour party, borders and immigration are just issues to be discussed at a coffee morning. Those issues involve the hopes, security and futures of our young people, a generation who were sold the pass by the previous Government. This Government are looking after them.
We need to reform zero-hours contracts, which the previous Government did nothing about.
Christopher Pincher
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although we do need to reform zero-hours contracts, only very few people on them say they do not get enough hours of work?
Charlie Elphicke
I agree. For me, this is about fairness and justice and ensuring there is flexibility while also protecting people. Labour did not do that, but this Government are doing it. That is very important, and social justice lies at the heart of so much of what we are doing.
We need to look after savers. There are too many zombie accounts—too many zombie ISAs, too many savers being taken advantage of. That was allowed under the previous Government. I say we should give consumers and savers a fair and just deal.
There should be more competition in the power markets, and our water bills should be fairer. I have made that case before, and I am glad to see that Ofwat has been listening and has made a stronger settlement for consumers in the 2015-20 period.
There must also be fairness and justice to our way of life. We need to make our Supreme Court supreme. We need to reform human rights legislation, which has too often gone wrong and too often promotes unfairness and injustice. That is the kind of vision a Conservative Government could build after 2015, and it is one I look forward to.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have tabled a reasoned amendment to the Gracious Speech because I do not believe that the legislative programme set out for this Session of Parliament puts us on track to either a stable economy or a fairer society, or for that matter a world of better quality jobs. That amendment calls for fair pay for work through a national living wage and maximum pay ratios. It calls for an end to the privatisation of public services and much else besides, but the focus of my comments today will be on the Infrastructure Bill, because one of the main benefits of that Bill is supposed to be job creation.
Of course we need more jobs, but high-carbon investment in new roads and shale gas is not the way to deliver that. There are far more job opportunities in a zero-carbon economy than in the fossil-fuelled economy that it replaces. Indeed, there are already more jobs in the green economy than in the motor and telecom sectors combined. The renewable energy industry in the UK today is a case in point, and supports over 100,000 jobs. That is not a fantasy, eyebrow-raising assumption. It is what we have today: actual jobs all across the UK—and that is without even taking into account future potential.
In 2013 approximately 14,000 full-time jobs were associated with the nation’s solar PV sector alone. That is pretty impressive, especially given that there were an estimated 10,000 job losses in the solar industry as a direct result of the coalition’s cack-handed cuts to feed-in tariffs. These losses have been partially offset by continued job creation in the wind industry: again, many of these will be despite anti-jobs, anti-investment policies from the coalition.
Solar is the most popular energy technology in the UK. Solar PV is also a way for individuals and communities to generate their own clean power, reducing dependence on the big six energy companies, and cutting energy bills. In April this year, two schools in Brighton switched on their solar panels.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry, but there is not time.
As I was saying, in April this year two schools in Brighton switched on their solar panels, while Brighton Energy Cooperative is in the process of raising funds from local people for its fifth large PV system. Yet the Government are now cutting support for large-scale solar, harming jobs and denying communities the opportunity to generate their own power from solar farms in the future.
Commenting on the UK slipping down the ranks of the renewable energy country attractiveness index for the second time in a row, to sixth place, Ernst and Young’s head of environmental finance says:
“Policy tinkering and conflicting signals once again become too much for investors and developers to handle.”
In other words, this Government’s policies are anti-jobs and anti-business, as well as anti-safe as far as the climate for our children and grandchildren is concerned.
The “global race” we hear so much about is getting more competitive. By early 2013, 138 countries had renewable energy targets. This Government are blocking such targets. Some 20 countries had renewable heating and cooling targets, too; we do not. Compared with other countries’ industrial strategies and coherent policy and incentive frameworks for home-grown renewables, the UK is looking pretty poor.
So what sort of policies would we be seeing if we had a pro-jobs Government who were serious about these opportunities and willing to stand up to the vested interests of the fossil-fuel industry, whose business plans are incompatible with a safe climate? We would see the confirming and strengthening of the fourth carbon budget. We would see the ditching of the irrational crusade against a binding 2030 renewable energy target. We would be giving the green investment bank powers to borrow now in order to leverage in the large proportion of private sector investment that is needed for the UK’s low-carbon economy to flourish. And we would be redirecting at least some of the billons of fossil fuel subsidies into renewable energy. We need a just transition—I particularly welcome the work that many unions have been doing on exactly how we will re-skill workers currently employed in high-carbon sectors—but it needs to happen fast. The point I want to illustrate is that the supposed conflict between tackling climate change and creating jobs is simply a political construct that suits incumbent fossil-fuel interests and very few others.
With thousands of people dying every winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, energy-efficiency should be the No. 1 infrastructure priority for the UK. Hundreds of Brighton residents have written to me in support of the Energy Bill Revolution campaign, which calls for the Treasury to recycle carbon taxes into a national programme of energy-efficiency to ensure that homes need much less energy to heat, so that we have lower bills, carbon savings and, significantly, huge job-creation potential. We could add to that list NHS savings and, fundamentally, an end to people dying prematurely of the cold in winter. A report by Cambridge Econometrics last year found that a nationwide programme to super-insulate 600,000 UK homes a year would create more jobs than any alternative investment or tax break the UK could possibly put in place. So, this Gracious Speech is going in the wrong direction in terms of the economy, the environment and, crucially, jobs.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is great to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), and I have several comments to make about renewables. Like other hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, may I say how much I welcome the fall in unemployment, yet again? In my constituency, it is now down to 2.7%. Listening to Opposition Members perhaps reinforces the Education Secretary’s determination to get a new course in British modern history in our schools, so that we can have a true evaluation of Government performance in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s.
There is now a feeling in Lancaster that it is a good time to do business and to set up a business. Just last week, I was opening the bright new offices of the Lancaster chamber of commerce, as it sees business developing and expanding, with a huge contribution from Lancaster university. The one thing that will kill this off for a small business that might be considering taking on one extra person or for an individual thinking about setting up their own business is the threat of an increase in national insurance and a jobs tax—or even the mention of it. I hope that Opposition Members will clarify what they are proposing, so that people thinking about starting a business or taking on new employees can plan what would be life-changing decisions.
I welcome the aims of the small business, enterprise and employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. It aims to foster and back the entrepreneurial spirit that thrives in the UK, particularly in the north-west; to build on the UK’s reputation as a fair and trusted place to do business; and, in particular, to give further help to small businesses in accessing finance and to improve payment practices between small businesses and their customers. Hon. Members have also mentioned other measures such as getting rid of regulations and assisting businesses to get into the export market.
Fleetwood, at one end of my constituency, still has thriving fish processing businesses, which export all over the world; tons of shellfish go from Fleetwood, even to places such as South Korea. But these businesses are small, and they are in poor buildings and in poor conditions. There is the potential to bring them together in a new Billingsgate of the north, with proposals from Wyre council that would be a game-changer in terms of adding to new employment and new skills in the Fleetwood area. I am asking today for support from Ministers in guiding the council to where it can access those funds, but I am grateful to Ministers for already agreeing that parts of Fleetwood would have assisted area status. We have massive potential to build on thriving family businesses, if they could just have modern buildings and cheaper energy sources to exploit the available markets.
While on potential, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) also mentioned, we must consider the business potential of 1,300 trillion cubic feet of potential shale gas reserves in the Bowland shale in Lancashire. May I say that the constant trumpeting of possibly thousands of new jobs does not totally wash in Lancashire, as there are yet no guarantees of how many jobs would be based locally? I am pleased that the national energy college might be sited at Blackpool and the Fylde college, which includes the Fleetwood nautical campus. If that does happen, local people might feel reassured that they could access the potential new jobs. In trying to sell this national potential, it would be good to get some clear idea of the impact on existing businesses that use water from the water table. As yet, I can find no answers about how much water will be used in this process, and what will happen to the contaminated water afterwards. This is no way to sell this potential game-changing energy business in Lancashire.
The Queen’s Speech contains measures on trespass rights, which affect landowners. I personally think that that is a draconian move, and no way to sell this business. To rub salt in the wounds, the consultation paper proposes a voluntary compensation scheme decided by the companies. If we want to sell this game-changing business and its potential, we should consider what a cross-party group of MPs and councils in Lancashire have requested, which is to make a bigger contribution to Lancashire. We should increase the offer of 1% of revenues to provide investment in that potential, rather than propose those draconian measures. I personally have some difficulty with that part of the speech.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
In a report published last week, the think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, predicted that, by 2022, there will be an additional 3.5 million jobs in medium-skilled occupations in industries where jobs require high-level vocational qualifications. The report identifies several emerging sectors with a serious deficiency of skills, including both health care and the building industry. In construction, a net increase of almost half a million jobs requiring medium levels of skill is predicted over the next eight years. That is a 40% increase from 2012. We need to prepare our present generation of young people for these jobs of the future, which is why quality, technical, practical and vocational education is so critical in this debate today.
Last year, around one in three students in this country in upper secondary education took vocational courses, and our youth unemployment is still almost one in five. I welcome the recent fall in youth unemployment, but the figure is still far too high. If we look at Germany, around half of young people under the age of 22 have successfully completed an apprenticeship, and apprenticeships are offered by around one in three companies. The youth unemployment rate is around 7.5%. The expert Tim Oates said that in 1945, the UK developed a world-class system of vocational education and then exported it to Germany where it thrives today.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition coined the phrase “the forgotten 50%” to describe the young people who do not go to university and whose talents are all too often wasted. That is why Labour has promised a proper, high-quality, technical baccalaureate, to recognise a structured route for young people pursuing vocational qualifications. Chris Husbands’s review for the Labour party set out the overhaul that is needed.
In the Queen’s Speech, there is a reference to the further expansion of apprenticeships. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said earlier, the headline numbers on apprenticeships simply do not stand up to scrutiny. As the Husbands review found, two-thirds of apprentices are not new job entrants but existing employees over the age of 25. Although it is right that those over the age of 25 should be able to retrain and gain new qualifications, the lack of quality apprenticeships for young people is startling.
In most other northern European countries, apprenticeships are typically level 3 qualifications that last from two to five years and include significant on and off-the-job training. In this country, the majority of new apprenticeships in recent years have not met those standards. It is crucial that we get this right. It is also crucial that we get right the quality of advice and guidance. Earlier this year, the Association of Colleges conducted a survey of careers advisers in secondary schools across the country. It found dramatic reductions in the amount of professional careers guidance on offer. A survey of pupils found that half of them felt that they were simply not well informed about the jobs available.
Let us learn from the best examples, which I know exist in communities up and down the country. Cardinal Heenan Catholic high school in my constituency is making great progress. Careers advice and guidance is built in from day one, as pupils arrive in year 7. They receive a careers passport as year 7 students, with a pack of information and advice about different employment options, and that follows them right the way through their time in the school. Every November, the whole school focuses on careers, and at the end of the month, year 7 pupils pick three careers of potential interest and make a list of who they would like to meet. That information informs the organisation of career and industry days right the way through the school. Year 8 pupils are given the opportunity to reflect on the choices they made, and in years 9 and 10 that develops further. The programme follows through right the way into sixth form. It is a fantastic way to get young people prepared in choosing a vocation, and the model could be replicated in schools across the country.
I also mention the excellent work of Future First, which seeks to build links between state schools and their alumni to offer guidance on different career paths and the world of work. It is a brilliant organisation, and it is great to see it go from strength to strength. Finally, in our focus on the forgotten 50%, we must also ensure that we continue to challenge our universities to be genuinely open to young people from all backgrounds. Our top universities still have a great deal more to do.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
As the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) did, I apologise at the outset; following the stipulations from the Chair, my intended speech has been ditched and replaced by a more ad hoc one, although I hope to touch on one of my original points a little later.
In Ceredigion, if we took away the three largest employers—the universities, the national health service and the county council—from the employment base for my rural constituency in west Wales, we would be left exclusively with a small and medium-sized enterprise work force. It is the work force of the 600 family farms and the one and two-man bands running small businesses right across the piece that will benefit very strongly from the provisions in the Queen’s Speech, not least the small business Bill and in particular the remedial proposals for prompt payment and late payment.
Some Members might have visited the Montgomeryshire day event in the Jubilee Room today, sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). I asked a producer of local cider where he sells his products. He used to send them to a wholesaler, but the wholesaler could not pay his bills. His late payment problems had a direct impact on the cider producer’s selling of his product. The small business Bill will assist in many other ways, such as on the minimum wage.
I commend what the Government have done on the employment allowance. I can think of no more significant step to ratchet up the employment base in the small business sector than by offering that opportunity to many of my constituents. Unemployment in Ceredigion now stands at 601 people, which is a welcome figure, but no Government Member will rest on their laurels. The Government are to be commended for what they have done on rural fuel. My regret is that the rural fuel derogation does not extend widely enough to places such as Ceredigion and many rural areas in England, too, but action has been taken.
We will not rest on our laurels in responding to reports, such as “A Fair Start for Every Child” by Save the Children, which identified 200,000 children in Wales still living in poverty. To their credit, our Assembly Government in Cardiff have proposed some initiatives, such as Flying Start, Communities First and Families First, to assist and support families in their everyday lives and to encourage some of those parents into training activities that will help them later on seek work.
I have a particular gripe with the Assembly Government in Cardiff, because they slashed the funding to two rural Communities First projects in Ceredigion; they were excellent projects in two areas of need, the Tregaron Uplands and Penparcau. However, this Government are taking clear initiatives that will support and assist in the creation of jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, given that I have spent the bulk of my time speaking within the terms of the debate and the amendment, may I cite what I wanted to talk about initially, namely the proposals in the Queen’s Speech dealing with child neglect? The fact is that we will now have measures—in clause 62 of the Serious Crime Bill—that will take decisive action in tackling the lack of harmony between action that can be taken in the family courts and civil law against the psychological abuse of children, and action that can be taken in criminal law. It closes an important loophole. Action for Children has been campaigning for that with great vigour over the years. I had the opportunity in the previous Session to have a private Member’s Bill, the Child Maltreatment Bill, which did not get beyond its First Reading. However, I am glad that the Government have listened on this issue. They have listened to the late Paul Goggins, who was among those who campaigned for years on this issue, to close a loophole so that the police can intervene—if necessary—when all other interventions have failed and take action against this most dangerous and heinous form of child abuse, namely psychological abuse.
With seven seconds to go, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and the House for showing tolerance of a rather unintended speech.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I start by welcoming the fact that for the 17th month in a row Northern Ireland unemployment figures have fallen. In my constituency, this time last year there were 513 more people out of work than there are today. That has to be acknowledged, although I must say that it is partly due to the hard work and pro-business policies pursued by my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly, with the Finance Minister and the Industry Minister from the Democratic Unionist party. During the last year, the Industry Minister has announced 10,800 new jobs in Northern Ireland, 40% of which have wages above the average for Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt that the context in which that has happened has been partly due to the increase and the improvement in the UK economy as a whole, and I acknowledge that that is the case. However, it is important to point out that many Government policies have acted as a counter to the work done by the Northern Ireland Executive. Whether those policies are the reductions in public expenditure—reductions of £4 billion in Northern Ireland, a region that is heavily dependent on public expenditure—or the inability to get to grips with the destructive attitudes and work of banks, especially Royal Bank of Scotland and its local bank, Ulster Bank, or indeed the removal of jobs from Northern Ireland in the centralisation programme affecting the Driver and Vehicle Agency and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, all have acted as a counter.
Nevertheless, there are important things that the Government can do. I am disappointed that although the Queen’s Speech refers to further fiscal and financial devolution for Scotland, there is an absence of any commitment to the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland. Of course, such a commitment would have given the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister an additional lever when it comes to trying to attract jobs to Northern Ireland.
I have only a short time to speak, but one area where I support the Government is the new direction—at least, I hope it is a new direction—on energy policy. There is no doubt that the current policy of increasing reliance on renewables has pushed up energy costs; it has cost jobs, especially in energy-intensive industries; and it has caused fuel poverty among many of our constituents. Indeed, today the National Grid Company has indicated that it is now paying firms to switch off power at times when wind speeds are low, because the renewables industry cannot cope with the capacity issues in the system. I therefore believe that the switch to exploiting the fossil fuels that we have in the United Kingdom is an important one.
It has already been estimated that the exploitation of shale gas will create between 64,000 and 70,000 jobs, many of them high-paying. Queen’s University Belfast has done a lot of research which has indicated that getting shale gas out of the ground in Northern Ireland would not only have an impact on Northern Ireland’s fuel security, but provide an important impetus in driving new feedstock for downstream industries, which themselves would create further jobs. I therefore welcome that Government initiative.
The second measure I want to welcome is the introduction of harsher penalties for employers that breach minimum wage legislation. We need not only harsher penalties but greater enforcement, because there is nothing more destructive of local firms than those who break the rules being able to exploit that and push legitimate companies out of business. On a related point, I believe that the Modern Slavery Bill will also play an important part. I hope that the Government will include supply chains outside the United Kingdom so that firms within the United Kingdom are not undercut by the use of slave labour in atrocious conditions in other parts of the world. We should not leave it to individual firms to check their supply chains; there needs to be legislation forcing them to do that.
All those measures will, I believe, help to create additional jobs. I hope that in a year’s time in Northern Ireland we will see even fewer people on the dole and more people in productive work, and in work that pays.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate on jobs and work. Despite all the doom and gloom from some Opposition Members, the long-term economic plan is working. I see that in my constituency, where since the general election overall unemployment is down by 47%—it is now 2.4% of the work force—youth unemployment is down by 65% and long-term unemployment is down by 24%.
What do local business owners and managers—the wealth creators in our country—think about the economic recovery and about jobs? The latest Thames valley business barometer, which will be formally published later this month—it is put together by accountants BDO and consultants C8 Consulting—could not be clearer: it has recorded a staggering swing in confidence levels in Thames valley businesses, from 31% last year to 90% now. Furthermore, 82% of businesses said turnover had increased, 86% expect it to increase further in the next six months, and 71% expect to increase their headcount over the next six months. Even on the availability of finance, 37% of businesses surveyed by the barometer said that they felt that access to finance had improved. Access to debt finance is of course important, but so is access to equity finance, especially for start-up ventures.
The Thames Valley local enterprise partnership has received funds from the Government, some of which it has allocated to a growth fund. The fund is administered by a third party, with match equity funding of between £50,000 and £150,000 available. Of course that is a good initiative, but we need to ensure that we can provide more equity funding. I would like to see the Government replicate the success of their StartUp loans scheme with a StartUp equity finance scheme, with match equity funding of up to £5,000 or £10,000, mentoring support and a fast turnaround of application decisions. The StartUp loans scheme has been allocated £150 million and has helped more than 18,000 entrepreneurs. Perhaps a StartUp equity finance scheme would have similar success.
I turn now to the small business, enterprise and employment Bill outlined in the Queen’s Speech. I welcome the Bill. There is a lot in it that will help smaller businesses. In particular, I welcome the fact that it will establish a deregulation target for each Parliament and introduce a new “appeals champion” to protect business against overreaching regulators. Small and medium-sized businesses do not want to be shackled by unnecessary red tape or to spend precious time and resources on it; they want to spend their time and resources building their business and creating employment.
As well as an appeals champion, I suggest that in future Parliaments we ought to have a Minister whose sole job is to look at deregulation across the piece. Ministers are helping to create new legislation every day, and it would be rather nice if at least one Minister spent all his or her time thinking about reducing the burden of regulation, particularly on businesses.
My final point is about naming and shaming employers who are not paying the minimum wage, and raising fines on such errant employers. I welcome what the Government are doing to expose the underpayers, but we need to be careful that reputable employers who make a genuine one-off error are not having their reputations tarnished unnecessarily. On Monday, I was contacted by HSS Hire Group, which employs almost 3,000 people across the UK and Ireland and has a successful training academy in my constituency. Only 20 of its employees are on the minimum wage; the rest are above it. In October last year, an error in the HSS computer system meant that the pay of 15 employees was not updated with the changes to the minimum wage made in that month, costing employees between 47p and £25 each and amounting to a total underpayment of £150.
According to HSS, this administrative error, which was noticed by the company itself, was rectified within a month. HSS received an acknowledgement from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs confirming that it was satisfied with the company’s response, and was issued with a notice of underpayment some three months after the error was first noticed. HSS has since been named and shamed. The company feels that, having proactively put right a genuine admin error, this is unfair. It has made representations to the Business Department and to HMRC. I raise this case because while it is absolutely right to expose rogue employers, we need to make sure that the internal checks and balances are working before companies with a reputation to protect are named and shamed.
In conclusion, I welcome the provisions to promote jobs and work creation in the Queen’s Speech, and I commend it to the House.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my proud 45-year membership of a union.
Let me start by referring to the exchange that took place between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister earlier today about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. I have to say that I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s response—not by its substance but by the fact that he did not really seem to be engaged with the issue. He offered, generously, to write to the Leader of the Opposition outlining the Government’s response to concerns about the TTIP’s impact on the national health service.
There are several campaigns under way regarding people’s beliefs about the impact of the TTIP. Personally, I think that many are misplaced. For example, on concerns about privatisation in the national health service, the biggest threat in that regard would not be the TTIP but the re-election of a Conservative Government at the next election. I accept, however, that those concerns are out there. Equally I accept that some of them are whipped up by those who are opposed to trade, and, even more so, viscerally opposed to the United States. None the less, these arguments have to be taken on. Frankly, there is a lack of that by Ministers or officials, and I have raised that with them directly.
This is important because it involves about half the world’s GDP and a strategic transatlantic linkage of the liberal democracies and liberal economies. It has great potential for our manufacturing industry, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in niche manufacturing, many of which have great difficulty in dealing with all the paperwork of international trade—much more so than the multinationals—and would be better able to expand their business. This is an important trade deal for the future that should not be allowed to go by default. Trade deals are never easy, as many of those who have been involved in several over the years will agree. However, they are very important, particularly because if we do not have trade deals between the liberal economies, international standards will be set by economies that do not take such a view.
The essence of the success of trade depends on our capacity to produce, and Government have a very significant role in this. I will be a little more generous to the Business Secretary than he was to his predecessor, because I think that he has not only pioneered several issues but very much followed on from many of the initiatives taken by his predecessor, Lord Mandelson.
I also pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, who has brought about a significant cultural change in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, directing it more towards battling and selling for Britain. I was recently in Auckland —the England rugby team are there—taking the opportunity to sell British goods. The GREAT Britain campaign is an extremely successful brand that our incoming Government should and will continue. I accept there is a need for more communication to ensure that many small and medium-sized enterprises are made more aware of the assistance they can get.
Although the FCO and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are doing well, other Government Departments are letting them down. Too often, we focus on Government as legislator or policy maker and miss out on their role as a client. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has drawn attention to what can be done in construction. However, on the purchase of police vehicles, the Home Office’s framework prevents Jaguar Land Rover from competing. No other country in the world would behave like that, and such behaviour runs through a number of Departments. I could give other examples if I had time. I ask the Minister to get his colleagues in other Departments to see reality and to start behaving like officials in other countries and put the interests of British manufacturing first.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Anyone who has listened to a number of speeches by Labour Members during this debate could be forgiven for believing that the good news about unemployment that we continue to see month on month—the 2 million jobs created by the economy, the record pace of the fall in unemployment, and more people, including more women, working than ever before—had never actually happened.
A number of Members have referenced the picture in their own constituency and I will briefly do the same for mine. More than 800 fewer people are on the unemployment register now than 12 months ago. Unemployment has fallen by a third. In east Kent, wages are rising faster than the national average and unemployment is falling faster. We are seeing the regeneration of the local economy.
Some Members have said that nothing is being done about apprenticeships, but nothing could be further from the truth. The number of young people starting an apprenticeship in my constituency this year is more than three times the number under the previous Government. Significant strides forward are being taken and young people are benefiting from that.
I also want to take this opportunity, in front of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to thank a group of people who do not get thanked enough, namely the staff at Jobcentre Plus in Folkestone. They are dedicated to what they do and work very hard with employers and people who are looking for work, particularly young people seeking apprenticeships and work placements. There will always be cases that we as Members of Parliament will take up with jobcentre teams, but they are a dedicated and hard-working group who are doing their best for people and we are seeing the result, which is fast-falling unemployment.
If Members were to stand in the middle of my constituency—this is certainly true of Folkestone—they would be considerably nearer to the coast of France than to the House of Commons. It is interesting, therefore, to reflect on the difference between the employment picture in Folkestone and that in Boulogne, with which we have been twinned for many years. Many Labour Members have suggested that if the Government had taken a different course—such as borrowing more money or taxing more heavily—perhaps things would have worked out even better, but the French economy gives us a live example of what might have happened. The unemployment rate in Folkestone is 3.4%, but in Boulogne it is more than 15%. The average hourly wage in Folkestone and Hythe is £12, whereas in Boulogne it is £9.
If we look at the performance of the British and French economies, we will see not only that unemployment here is lower, but that the rate of business start-ups here is significantly higher. Earlier this year, I was interested to read in The New York Times, which is not exactly famed for being a tribune of the hard right—it is a fairly liberal, moderate newspaper—an article called, “Au Revoir, Entrepreneurs”. It looked at the growing trend of people moving from France to the UK to set up their own business, and quoted Guillaume Santacruz, who explained his thinking:
“A lot of people are like, ‘Why would you ever leave France?’…I’ll tell you. France has a lot of problems. There’s a feeling of gloom that seems to be growing deeper. The economy is not going well, and if you want to get ahead or run your own business, the environment is not good.”
When asked why he had chosen to come to the UK, he said:
“I asked myself, ‘Where will I have the bigger opportunity in Europe?’…London was the obvious choice. It’s more dynamic and international, business funding is easier to get, and it’s a better base if you want to expand.”
I am pleased to hear anyone tell such a story about their reasons for coming here.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
In the short time available to the hon. Gentleman, will he, as the chair of an all-party group that covers the textile industry, say what a great news story the renaissance in UK textiles is?
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Textiles is becoming one of the great renaissance industries, with British textile businesses and manufacturing centres winning contracts back from the far east, creating high-quality jobs here and supporting the fantastic British fashion industry. That is one of the great success stories.
The shadow Secretary of State spoke about picking winners and having a positive industrial strategy. We see that nowhere more clearly than in the creative sector in this country. The recovery in textiles is such an example, but the Government’s programme of tax credits for film, animation and television production—now extended to theatre production as well—is bringing more work not just to England, Scotland and Wales, but to Northern Ireland, where it is a very important part of the renaissance of the Northern Ireland economy.
The Opposition amendment requires a bit more attention, which the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills gave it in his speech, because the Labour party is once again presenting itself as the champion of a great cause, without having any real answers for the problems it identifies. In its amendment, Labour does not propose the adoption of the living wage as the minimum wage—it is largely proposing exactly what the Government are doing, which is to encourage the Low Pay Commission to consider increasing the minimum wage faster than average earnings—and does not propose to mandate any changes, while it includes the caveat that the Low Pay Commission is still free to disregard Labour’s advice and do what it wants.
On the basis of the amendment, Labour is somehow seeking to present itself as a party with a very different policy. It does have different policies on tax and spending, which are those that got the economy into the mess it was in. Our policies are leading to a renaissance in work, employment and business start-ups, and they are also delivering a fairer deal for the low-paid, both in increasing the minimum wage ahead of the rise in average earnings and in cutting taxes for low-paid people in work. That is a much better model to follow.
The future is incredibly bright for business and job creation in this country. The very large number of people who, as we come out of the recession, have decided to set up their own business, start up on their own and invest in themselves and their community is a sign of the great underlying heath of the economy today.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
During the past year, I have been pleased to work with colleagues from both sides of the House in seeking, with some success, to regulate payday lenders. Going beyond such regulation, however, we need to ask why people turn to high-cost credit and what we can do about it.
Christians Against Poverty has recently reported that 80% of its advice service users have taken out loans for food, 52% for fuel bills and 36% for rent and mortgage payments: food, heating and housing—the cost of living. There are two sides to the problems in that not only are costs rising, but incomes are depressed. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to say last week:
“It is a basic belief of the British people that if you work all the hours God sends, you should at least be able to make ends meet.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 16.]
That is not happening today in Britain, one of the richest countries in the world.
Some 47% of those who visited Citizens Advice with a payday loan issue in the past quarter are in work. There has been a staggering 60% increase in the number of working people claiming housing benefit since the Government were elected. According to a recent Church Action on Poverty report, much of the increased use of food banks has been by working people on low wages. Our economy is simply not rewarding hard work.
Over the last generation, there has been a shift of between 5% and 7% of GDP from wages to profits and from profits to shareholders—quite deliberately—by weakening the bargaining power of working people. We are now seeing the consequences: for too many people, part-time employment has replaced full-time work; the minimum wage has become the norm, not a safety net; and the security of income that people look for has been replaced by the uncertainty of zero-hours contracts.
Employers are looking for every opportunity to drive down labour costs. A care worker who came to see me was paid the minimum wage for the time she spent with the elderly, but was paid nothing as she spent hours driving from one appointment to another. People have come to see me about zero-hours contracts that make it impossible for them to plan their family budget from week to week.
Growing impoverishment is not the only consequence. Public funds are increasingly being used to prop up a low-wage economy. Social security spend on in-work benefits has risen by almost 20% in 10 years. Taxpayers’ money is being diverted from funding public services to paying dividends and feeding the growing income inequality.
People deserve better. They need a Queen’s Speech that stimulates the growth that will create better-paid jobs through an active industrial strategy, backed by a British investment bank and regional banks, and by building the homes that we need. We need to make work pay by strengthening the enforcement of the national minimum wage and giving local councils the responsibility of taking on that task. We need action to end abuses such as the non-payment of travel time, which affects about 10% of care workers, according to the Low Pay Commission. We need to end bogus self-employment in sectors such as construction. We need to reset the remit of the Low Pay Commission to increase the national minimum wage significantly and bring it closer to average earnings. We need to stop wage rates being undercut by employers who recruit exclusively from eastern Europe. We need to end the abuse of zero-hours contracts by giving workers the right to proper contracts that reflect their actual working hours. We need to work towards a living wage by building on the initiatives of the Labour councils that have implemented it for their workers, using the levers of public procurement to encourage more employers to pay it, and putting in place tax breaks to encourage more employers to adopt it.
I started my comments by welcoming the action that the House has taken on payday lending, but let us not just deal with the symptoms; let us tackle the sickness at its source. We need bold action to make our economy work for the many, not for the few. The Gracious Speech falls short of that mark.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), but I support the Gracious Speech and, in particular, the measures that will support the continued creation of jobs.
Warwick and Leamington is home to a thriving local economy. The Government’s pro-business policies have provided significant help in achieving that and I pay tribute to local businesses for their part in it. More supportive policies were announced in the Queen’s Speech, such as the small business, enterprise and employment Bill, which will undoubtedly add to the climate of business confidence and expansion. Small business rate relief and the reduction in and, in some cases, removal of employer’s national insurance contributions are but two examples of the many Government policies that have supported business growth over the past five years.
There is clear evidence of that growth in my constituency, where the number of out-of-work claimants has reduced by a staggering 59.5% since April 2010. Further proof of business confidence came to light just this week in a report from the business consultancy, Duport, which showed that a record number of companies were formed in Leamington Spa in the first quarter of 2014. From January to March, 205 new companies were registered in the town, which represents a massive 31% increase on the previous year.
My region has a proud industrial heritage. It has been home to iconic brands such as Aga Rangemaster and Dennis Eagle for many years. It is now the destination of choice for companies such as Vitsoe and First Utility.
Vitsoe offers a particularly apt example, which sums up this renaissance. The old Ford foundry, which manufactured on the same site for many years in Leamington, closed in 2007, with the tragic loss of many hundreds of jobs. In 2013, furniture manufacturer Vitsoe was looking to relocate its factory and, earlier this year, it was confirmed that it would take over the old Ford foundry site, again confirming that we are a destination for manufacturing.
The area also attracts new industries. Leamington is home to a thriving creative industry, with many digital media and video games manufacturers now calling the town home—to the extent that the area is now commonly referred to as “Silicon Spa”. It acts as one of the global hubs for the games industry and the jobs that creates.
Despite those positive and encouraging developments, I would be the first to admit that there is more still to do. There are two key areas to focus on to achieve this. First, we need to continue to rebalance the economy by supporting our manufacturing sector and the jobs it creates. There is great positivity in the manufacturing sector, with UK manufacturing activity increasing for the 15th successive month. However, we can do more as a Government to support the sector and ensure that it continues to thrive.
The Government have already demonstrated their commitment to supporting UK manufacturing and to encouraging a re-shoring of industry, as evidenced by the measures in this year’s Budget, including reducing operating costs and providing affordable finance options, which will encourage investment and export.
Secondly, we should do more to encourage the developing social enterprise sector. We need to support these businesses, which contribute to society as much as they contribute to the economy and jobs. As a Government, we need to have a greater understanding of the culture behind those businesses and increase the recognition that this part of the economy receives.
Support for business, through well designed policies, will create an environment that supports growth and jobs.
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that I found the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), particularly about manufacturing, of real interest.
As the economy recovers, we have a genuine opportunity to think about how we are shaping it and about how Britain succeeds in the modern world. My view has always been that Britain succeeds when its small businesses succeed. It is the Government’s job to get behind small business and create the conditions for British SMEs to thrive. I therefore welcome the inclusion of a small business, enterprise and employment Bill in the Gracious Speech. I hope that it will offer an opportunity to have a serious discussion about some of the very real challenges that face small business in Britain.
Having recently set up a small business in Rochdale—Danczuk’s Deli, for which I declare an interest—I can testify to how real some of these challenges are. Whether it is access to finance, late payments or being shut out from the tendering process for local procurement contracts, too many small businesses feel that Government do not always give them the proper level of support.
I have two important concerns. The first surrounds aspects of the small business, enterprise and employment Bill where I do not feel the Government are showing the necessary ambition to tackle the big challenges. For example, the Government talk about increasing access to finance, but they are unclear about what they actually intend to do about it. This country needs an ambitious programme based around regional investment banks aimed at getting banks lending to businesses again. In Germany, where thriving SMEs form the backbone of economic success, nearly 2,000 institutions lend to small businesses. In the UK, fewer than 400 do that. Any Government that are serious about tackling this issue would start by reforming the banks. My first concern is therefore about a potential lack of ambition in the Bill.
My second concern is that the Government still have their head in the sand on business rates. I guarantee that at any event with people from the small business world, the subject of business rates will be raised pretty quickly. Business people think the system is broken, and they rate that as their No. 1 concern. They are right to be angry about it.
The business rates system is based on a view that the profitability of a business is linked to the physical size of the premises. That is complete madness in the modern world where many businesses trade online with no physical shops or factories. When we add to that the ridiculous and arbitrary valuation system, we have one of the most unfair and ineffective systems of taxation that can be thought of. The Gracious Speech is a final indication that reform of business rates has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future. If the Government are not prepared to act, will they please give up the empty rhetoric about business rates?
Finally, we need a serious discussion about some of the other proposals in the Bill and how they will work in practice. For example, Jill Nagy from Rochdale Training in my constituency has raised concerns about how the new apprenticeship arrangements will work. She feels that those arrangements will push more bureaucracy on to employers and take it away from training providers, which could cause problems for SMEs hiring apprentices. That is a real issue that could create more bureaucracy and red tape for small businesses, and we need to look at it again.
I hope that many of these issues can be ironed out during the year, and that the small business, enterprise and employment Bill will give us the chance to push for more action on access to finance and business rates reform. Small businesses in this country are all different, but they are united by a sense of ambition and optimism about the future. It is time for the Government to match that ambition.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). As always, he speaks with conviction and commitment, and I know he works hard on behalf of his constituents and for the north-west. It is good to speak in this debate and recognise the progress being made on the economy nationally, and indeed in Macclesfield. Many Conservative Members have recently also seen how well things are going in Newark, and it was great to recognise and honour our new colleague in the Chamber today.
In my work I am constantly inspired—as, I am sure, are many other hon. Members—by the great work that goes on in my constituency with volunteers, dedicated town and parish councillors, Cheshire East councillors, and public servants. Today, however, I wish to recognise the inspiring work of many small and medium-sized businesses and self-employed people who are making a huge difference to our local economy.
Debbie Quinn is one of the inspiring people who set up our community treacle market. She then went on to set up a small restaurant, the Salt Bar, which was featured on “The Restaurant Man” on the BBC. She has now helped revitalise the castle quarter in Macclesfield. Yes, that is for profit, but my goodness is she making a contribution to our economy as well. She came to a recent jobs fair with me and we spoke to lots of small businesses. She is already taking on more apprentices—that is the dedication that individuals can have.
I recently visited a local business, Silkmoth, which was set up by a few people and now totals 13 employees. It services 700 independent tyre fitters across the country and provides a platform for them to do e-commerce and online business. That is the sort of contribution that such businesses make, along with other fantastic businesses such as musicMagpie, which has recreated a whole segment of activity by recycling DVDs, CDs and computer games in a massive market. It now employs more than 800 people, with sales in 2012 at £63 million—an incredible achievement. That is the sort of difference such businesses can make, and increasingly they come to me and thank me for the contribution and work of this Government in setting a framework in which they can thrive and succeed.
Earlier in the week it was encouraging to go to a reception by the Federation of Small Businesses here in the House and—other Members may have noticed this—hear its national chairman speak about having had a bumper year, and the way it has been able to influence Government policy and engage with other political parties. It says that it regards the small business Bill as a landmark Bill, and it is a landmark Bill because it will build on the Government’s work in the Finance Bill and the national insurance contributions Bill, which featured in the Queen’s Speech. Together, they will make a difference to the lives of the people who will help to transform our economy even further. The entrepreneurs, employers and exporters are the people who will help to create sustainable economic growth.
It is worth touching on the contribution that is being made by the self-employed. We are helping the growing band of first-time entrepreneurs by cutting back red tape. The small business Bill will ensure that red tape is reviewed frequently and that that requirement is put into law. The national insurance contributions Bill will simplify the collection of national insurance for the self-employed, removing one of the barriers to taking on the opportunity to become self-employed. I feel absolutely passionately that we need to do more to encourage first-time employers. We have done that already with the employment allowance, reducing national insurance contributions and taking under-21s out of national insurance entirely. We need to build on those opportunities by removing more barriers. It is critical that the small business Bill strengthens existing prompt payment codes, helping small businesses to have a better deal in their interactions with bigger businesses and greater access to public procurement. It will also ensure, as other Members have mentioned, that sources of finance and advice on finance will be more available to them, too. I agree with the Federation of Small Businesses that this is a landmark Bill.
This is an important Queen’s Speech that will help many more businesses to succeed in their activities. It is further progress in our aim to have successful and sustainable economic growth under the long-term economic plan. For those reasons, I support wholeheartedly the Queen’s Speech.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I have been contacted by many constituents who are disappointed by the Queen’s Speech, not just by its broad failure to tackle the real economic and social problems they face, but, in particular, its failure on recall and the inexplicable omission of a Bill to ban wild animals in circuses.
Today’s debate is about jobs and I want to start by talking about the prevalence of low pay—and, indeed, no pay—in one of the fastest-growing and most successful sectors of our economy: the arts and creative industries. I speak here as chair of the all-party group for the Performers Alliance, which works with the Musicians Union, Equity and the Writers Guild to provide a voice in Parliament for musicians, actors, writers and performers.
The headline figures on the success of our creative industries are impressive, but they mask a situation in which those with talent and creativity often go unrewarded. Equity’s most recent survey of members found that virtually half earned under £5,000, and 86% earned less than £20,000 a year. Similar research by the MU demonstrated that 60% had worked for free in the past year. We must get a grip on this situation to ensure that work in this sector does not become the preserve of only those from privileged backgrounds, as is increasingly the case.
The all-party group’s report, “Work Not Play” sets out what action is needed, such as clear, industry-specific guidance on the national minimum wage on the Gov.uk website. That is something Equity and I discussed with the then Minister with responsibility for employment relations, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), back in October. We will keep pressing the Government on this matter.
As the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is in his place, I will take the opportunity to highlight Equity’s concerns that the roll-out of universal credit will prove extremely detrimental to the ability of many of its members to sustain careers in the creative industries. Many will be assumed to have an income they simply do not have, as a result of the application of the minimum income floor, or subject to increased conditionality. This is why Equity is calling for a reduction in the minimum income floor and a relaxation in conditionality for creative industry workers. The creative industries are characterised by unpredictable and short-term patterns of work, and the system must acknowledge that.
I want to talk about the need for action against unscrupulous—or perhaps, to be generous, unwitting employers—who profit from the exploitation of workers both here and abroad. We have heard how the failure to pay the minimum wage and the use of zero-hours contracts have undercut the wages of workers in the UK, and I fully support my party’s efforts to push the Government further on tackling such abuses. There is much more to be done, particularly in relation to company supply chains.
We have heard horrific stories in this Chamber before about the use of trafficked, child and forced labour. According to International Labour Organisation estimates, there are 21 million victims of forced labour around the world, working in unimaginably harsh conditions for little pay or enslaved for no pay at all. People will have seen today’s coverage of the Environmental Justice Foundation’s report, “Sold to the Sea”, which documents the severe conditions in the Thai fishing industry, where, it is said, men are
“bought and sold like animals,”
held against their will, abused and even murdered. An investigation by Finnwatch into Thai factories also revealed forced and child labour, illegally low wages, excessive working hours, abuse by managers and unsafe working hours.
Such factories form part of the supply chains for European companies. As Anti-Slavery International has said:
“If you buy prawns or shrimp from Thailand, you will be buying the produce of slave labour”.
I know that the Modern Slavery Bill is being introduced by the Home Office, and I welcome it, but the Business Secretary clearly has a strong interest too in ensuring that British companies and British consumers do not support the exploitation of workers in that way. I urge him to talk to his colleague the Home Secretary about whether the Bill can be strengthened to legislate against slavery in the supply chain. The EU imported over $1 billion-worth of seafood from Thailand in 2012, so I would also ask the Business Secretary to raise these issues in the EU’s free trade agreement negotiations with Thailand, which is in his remit too.
Given more time, I could talk at length about other examples of the exploitation of workers by unscrupulous employers, whether it be one individual taking advantage of another’s vulnerability or the systematic exploitation of hundreds of workers by huge companies. We need a fundamental shift in power and a Government who stand up for such workers—in whatever industry or, indeed, whatever country, because in today’s global economy the exploitation of workers abroad has an undoubted impact here—using whatever international mechanisms we have at our disposal, such as the ILO, to ensure that everyone gets a fair deal. The Government have singularly failed to step up to the plate so far. I hope they will do so now.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). She made some important points, which I agree with, about modern day slavery.
It is a pleasure to have my chance to speak about my constituency of Weaver Vale, and jobs and work. I am aware that I have spoken a number of times about my jobs and apprenticeship fairs. This is the third time that I have mentioned my third annual jobs fair, of which colleagues have been very supportive. However, if I keep this pattern up, I suspect that my colleagues will be slightly less tolerant when I hold my fourth jobs fair, next year.
The reason I raise employment in the House so frequently is that I understand that it is not about just boosting economies, ticking boxes or quoting statistics. I left school at 16 with few qualifications and I spent some time unemployed, so I understand that employment means so much more than being a statistic on a piece of paper. This is about confidence, getting up in the morning and people knowing that they are in control of their own future. When we think of employment statistics, we should think not just of the big picture—although of course that is important—but of how lives have been changed because of new-found vocations.
So what is the outlook for Weaver Vale? I am exceptionally proud that my constituency is a real success story. Since 2010, unemployment has dropped by 30%, to a claimant rate of 3.1% for jobseeker’s allowance. There are 749 fewer jobseekers than a year ago, and youth unemployment has dropped by 41% in the past year alone. What has caused such a dramatic improvement in the outlook for my constituents? Of course, a number of factors have contributed to this success story. First and foremost, as I have mentioned occasionally in the past, the long-term economic plan is working. This country’s recovery from the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and the deepest recession since world war two is fast and getting faster. Britain has set out to the world that it is a great place to do business. International and national confidence in our economy is high. Confidence translates into investment. Businesses are therefore expanding to create more jobs. Britain is open for business and everyone knows it.
The second factor is local investment projects, such as the Mersey gateway bridge—representatives of which were in attendance at my jobs fair—and the regeneration of Northwich town centre, which are creating hundreds of construction roles and thousands of permanent jobs. Such projects identify the local need and are being maximised to create bright new prospects across a huge range of vocations. I look forward to continuing to work with jobseekers and employers alike as those projects develop.
Finally, I should like to mention employment skills. At my jobs and apprenticeships fair, I welcomed employment support organisations and apprenticeship schemes to help people to develop the skills they need. Waitrose recently opened a store in Northwich, creating 151 roles as a part of the regeneration of the town centre. I am very pleased that Northwich shoppers now have more choice in their weekly shop and that numerous charities and community projects, such as the ArtWork gallery, are receiving support from the store. However, what is even more important about the opening of this store is the fact that 45% of the staff were unemployed before being offered their role. A further one in five roles were offered to people working fewer than 16 hours a week.
Last month, I was delighted to welcome the Chancellor to Northwich to see the regeneration, to meet staff and to learn about their stories. Waitrose collaborated with a number of local organisations, including Cheshire West and Chester council, the Northwich jobcentre and Mid Cheshire college, which works with local jobseekers, tailoring its training to make them perfect candidates for the roles. This is a great example of local bodies recognising the need for candidates and the need for jobs, and identifying the skills required to match up to those needs. In truth, this is the most important aspect of the upturn in employment statistics. It is about showing individuals the skills that they have already, helping them to discover new skills and finding the right role for them. That is also why I believe apprenticeships are so important; they nurture vocational skills.
I am very pleased that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency has risen by 27% over the past three years—a statistic that I expect to rise even further next year, thanks to the excellent work of Mid Cheshire college and the ambitious 100-day apprenticeship challenge of the Northwich Guardian. I am proud that the outlook for jobseekers in Weaver Vale has improved so markedly since I became a Member, and I will continue to run my jobs fairs to bring together training, talent and opportunity, because I believe that every job filled is a success story to be proud of.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope to demonstrate that many of the measures in the Gracious Speech fail to address the real issues facing my constituency.
The north-east demonstrates many aspects of a successful knowledge-based economy, with a highly skilled and motivated work force. Our manufacturing industry alone is worth £7.5 billion to the economy, and we have a strong and successful advanced engineering sector, as well as leading the way in low-carbon technology and sustainable energy solutions.
The north-east has some key competitive advantages to enable further rebalancing and job creation to happen, if only opportunities can be unlocked. Labour recognised that when in government, and our regional development agency, One North East, was working very successfully to build on this unique skills base. Regrettably, this approach was lost when the Government abolished the regional development agencies without giving thought to the consequences of losing their skills in job creation and attracting jobs to the area.
Lord Adonis’s “North East Independent Economic Review” report recently made proposals to boost exports and supply chains and co-ordinate inward investment activities. In many ways, it sought to put back together some of the functions once carried out by the regional development agency, but with a fresh purpose and momentum. Unfortunately, there is no sign whatever that the Government will act on this report. Indeed, they have no proposals at all to intervene in an economy that needs to deliver more jobs—something that Labour did very successfully. It worked very hard to attract Hitachi to the region, and it looks as though we will gain more than 5,000 jobs in the next few years. Labour also supported Nissan through the recession, so that more jobs and skills could be developed, and we also developed the supply chain. My point to the Government is that that simply could not have happened without intervention—something that we do not have from them at the moment.
There is a real contrast between all that under Labour and having a local enterprise partnership in the area that is barely functional—it does not have a chief executive or even a deputy chief executive at the moment—and a regional growth fund that operates a scattergun approach. Most of the money allocated to the region is not drawn down in any case. According to a recent report by the National Audit Office, most of the funds remain unspent, while the cost of creating jobs has increased considerably, but Ministers are taking no action to tackle this set of concerns.
This is not only about the number of jobs created; it is about the quality of jobs on offer, too. Work must pay. The northern TUC has raised the important issue of the nature of the jobs being created in the region: many are precarious and based on zero-hours contracts, and we risk losing valuable, high-quality public sector jobs in the region, with poor private sector replacements. A good example is the Government’s proposals to privatise the Land Registry. Those jobs are currently good-quality public sector jobs, but we risk their being downgraded through privatisation. Under the present Government, about eight out of 10 new private sector jobs have been created in the south of England. It is also worrying that the number of business start-ups in Durham has fallen by 14%, compared with a national fall of 1% in the first quarter of the year.
This is not only about finding work; it is about what happens to those who are receiving low pay. My constituency is among the 10 areas that are suffering the most from the bedroom tax, which is causing households to lose about £482 a year, resulting in a reduction in local spending power. Wages in the north-east are about £50 a week lower than the UK average and about £200 a week less than wages in London. Therefore, in the retail sector, people in the north-east are spending 10% less than people elsewhere in the country. The Government must do more to rebalance the economy, and take account of issues relating specifically to regions such as the north-east.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the critical drags on the creation of decent, well-paid jobs is the continuing difficulty experienced by both small businesses and ordinary households in gaining access to affordable credit. I wait with interest for details of the measures in the small business Bill, but I fear that they will not go far enough.
A number of United Kingdom-based experts with knowledge of small business lending have suggested that part of the problem is the wide disparity within and between different parts of the UK in obtaining access to business finance. For years, as a result of a package of legislative measures known colloquially as the Community Reinvestment Act, banks in the United States have had to disclose where they are lending by postcode and the type of lending that they offer and to demonstrate, to secure banking licences, that they are offering a service in all the areas from which they take deposits. There is also organised scrutiny of the data that they disclose, so that policy makers can locate the gaps in access to credit. In parts of America where lending is low, banks work closely with alternative lenders of finance such as community banks to address the shortage. In the absence of a similar regular disclosure of lending data, the Government, local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and community banks in this country are working with one hand tied behind their backs in trying to understand where further support is needed to provide proper access to credit.
It is true that in January, following sustained pressure from Members in all parts of the House, banks published data showing lending to businesses and personal lending by postcode, as a one-off, but I understand that no organisation has yet received funds that would enable it to carry out a comprehensive examination of those data, and it is not clear how regular further lending data disclosures will be. There is no legal requirement for UK banks to release such data—it is still voluntary—but I hope that we may yet see such a requirement in the small business Bill.
Concern about lending to businesses is mirrored by concern about the existence of lending deserts in personal finance. The number of bank branch closures has increased over the past four years, and, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a growing number of communities with no bank or alternative banking facilities are being forced to turn to high-cost sources of credit such as payday lenders.
I asked the Financial Inclusion Centre to take an initial look at the lending data for London. It concluded that there did appear to be a postcode lottery, with significant variations between levels of lending. There are, for example, areas of London in which lending to small and medium-sized enterprises drops to between a quarter and a third of the London average. A better understanding of the differences in personal lending between communities might help to ensure that efforts to expand credit union coverage and membership were directed more effectively. I should have liked the Queen’s Speech to contain further measures to accelerate awareness of credit unions as a cheaper source of personal credit. The inclusion of a clear cross-Government target of increasing the number of members and enabling local authorities, housing associations and employers to encourage credit union membership might have been useful. Similarly, a legal right to allow employees to have deducted at source a small part of their income for saving with a credit union would have been helpful.
I am disappointed that there are no measures in the Queen’s Speech to tackle the growing crisis in the NHS. In my constituency, there are problems at Northwick Park hospital. Our A and E department is under significant pressure; it is one of the worst in terms of meeting the target to see 95% of A and E patients within four hours. My constituents are inevitably worried about the Government’s decision to close the nearby Ealing hospital A and E department and about the disclosure that the hospital board thinks that an additional 123 beds are needed on the Northwick Park site to deal with the pressures. I have not yet seen any evidence that the Government will meet the demand for finance to deal with that issue. I hope that that will be corrected soon.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in the debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), who made a powerful case. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Secretary of State, outlined a range of issues on which the Government could have acted to deal with the cost of living crisis and to support the small business sector. A couple of points have been raised with me by small businesses in my community, and I make a plea for joined-up government to deal with them. However, one thing struck me during the debate on zero-hours contracts and the variability of the hours that people work. I recently met a woman on the doorstep who said, “I am working part-time. I am trying to do my best. I have two children, and if I get extra hours it costs me £15 an hour for child care. I earn £7 an hour.” That is the reality that many people face.
We regularly hear pleas about red tape from the small business sector. Some Members have mentioned that, but I have not yet heard anything from the Government about which particular bits of red tape they may want to slash in the coming Bill. In an attempt to be helpful, as always, I will mention some that my constituents have suggested. Unlike some Members, I would not suggest cutting red tape in a way that would impede our ability to ensure safe working environments. My constituents’ suggestions are about the collection of statistics. One constituent told me in an e-mail:
“We currently ‘have’ to take part in the Monthly Business Survey, the Annual PRODCOM (UK Manufacturers Sales by Product) survey, the Business Register and Employment Survey, and the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, fifteen surveys per annum.”
That is from a very small business that employs local people and contributes to the local economy. However, for some reason it seems to be locked in: once the ONS gets hold of a small business for surveys, it never gets out of that cycle. It is unclear how small businesses are selected for those surveys.
I understand that 26 businesses in my constituency have to complete these surveys during the year. Another two businesses have contacted me. One is a small business that manufactures ice cream. It cannot understand why it was asked to complete a very lengthy survey and threatened with legal action and penalties if it did not do so. After pursuing the issue, it turned out that the business was being asked to complete the wrong survey. When we looked at this further, it seemed that, despite all the threats that are made to small businesses, very few people actually end up being pursued. I wonder how much it is costing the Government to pursue this, rather than slashing the so-called red tape facing businesses.
On the same issue, a businesswoman who runs a local garage explained to me that she had queried the form she was being asked to fill in because it did not make any sense in relation to her business, and she received an acknowledgement that perhaps it was not the right form. The Cabinet Office, which has responded to me, and the BIS and DWP teams may want to try to ensure that we do something practical and sensible and bring forward specific proposals that will help such small businesses in my constituency.
I want to make a final plea on business lending. Notwithstanding everything the Government say, businesses in my constituency are still telling me that it is impossible to get the funding they need to get people into jobs and make the contribution to the local community that they want to make.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Having sat here for the best part of six and a half hours listening to the discussion of various issues to do with the Gracious Speech, I have to say I am not surprised that many people outside the Westminster bubble feel disenchanted with politics. We have seen from the Government Benches that the fine and dandy politics shines through—Government Members have explained to the people who will be listening to this and who perhaps read reports that life in the UK is fine and that everybody is doing marvellously, but that simply is not the case.
People are right to sit back and be offended by politicians who continually ram that down their throats, suggesting that their life is fine and their families are fine and they should not complain and they should know their place. We live in food bank Britain, yet the fine and dandy politics of the coalition suggests that that is a good thing—it shows community spirit; it is not because people need to eat food to live. The fact that there are more working people at food banks than there are people who are not working is apparently the big society, and it is to be celebrated. Try telling that to people who actually attend the food banks.
We discussed zero hours for a lot of hours today. Different people have different views. The fine and dandy politics of the coalition simply says, “Well, we’ll look at zero-hours contracts, but listen: people should be happy that they’ve got zero-hours contracts. It’s a job. They’re not unemployed, and it doesn’t matter that they’re not making a halfpenny in a week. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t got any protection in the workplace. Be happy because you’ve got a job and you’re not unemployed.” That is rubbish. Try telling it to the young man or woman or the family who are on zero-hours contracts and cannot control their lives. Try telling the agency workers who are being exploited. Try having a look at the situation they are in. Instead of telling everybody that life is brilliant, we should be looking at trying to restore some justice to ordinary people in this country.
I am terribly upset by what went off today, because Members have simply been suggesting that we live in utopia, and saying, “This is happening and that is happening and it’s fantastic, and that’s what we’ve delivered, and you’re scared to talk about it”, while at the same time we have got people suffering greatly in our constituencies. We have child poverty, pensioner poverty, fuel poverty and food poverty, and people relying on handouts—not benefits but handouts—to make a living, put bread on the table and clothe their kids. That is what we should have been addressing in the next few months, in the road to the next general election. People are saying that this is a zombie Parliament. Of course it is, but it is not as if we have not got things to talk about and people to deliver for.
The Bills in the Queen’s Speech, which we will be dealing with for the next six, seven, eight months, contain nothing that will deliver for many of the people in our communities who are desperate and do not live with rose-tinted spectacles on. They are desperate for some help from politicians from all sides. That is what we are here for— we are here to represent the people in our communities—and it is about time that people in this place realised that the Westminster bubble is completely different from other parts of the United Kingdom. My view is simply that we need at all times to remember where we come from, where we want to be and who we represent.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). The Government claim this Queen’s Speech is unashamedly pro-work, pro-business and pro-aspiration, but that statement is an attempt to show a united front between the two coalition partners rather than a reflection of the reality of the content of this Queen’s Speech. Yet again, this Queen’s Speech is notably weak on something that matters crucially to the people of Britain: the quality of jobs and work. Once again, my constituents could be forgiven for seeing little in it for them: very little on jobs, very little for families, nothing to deal with the cost of living crisis, and nothing to instil confidence in the future for our young people.
The Government claim to have turned the economy around, yet they ignore the everyday struggle of ordinary people. Under this Government we have seen a rising tide of insecurity at work, which is adding to the costs of social security as people are forced to rely on benefits to make ends meet. The truth is that most people across the UK are experiencing squeezed living standards. Families are working harder, for longer, for less, yet they are seeing prices go up and up. In addition, the talents of millions of our young people are going to waste, and small businesses feel that this Government are not on their side.
For the Government to declare their economic plan a success, they must continue to deny the cost of living crisis that is engulfing the country. Even people in work see that wages are falling, because of the increase in the cost of living, and there have been unprecedented falls in real wages in the UK since the start of this recession. If we cast our minds back—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Minister of State, I can hear your conversation clearly. Members have sat in this Chamber all day waiting to speak and we should pay them the courtesy of listening to what they have to say, even if we do not necessarily agree with them.
Mr McKenzie
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us cast our minds back. We recall that this did not happen in previous economic downturns, when median real wage growth slowed, or at worst stalled, but did not fall. Under this government, the real wages of the typical worker have fallen by about 8% to 10%, meaning that most people, except those at the very top, have experienced falling living standards. There is a cost of living crisis across the UK, and young people have been particularly badly hit. Those aged 25 to 29 have seen real wage falls in the order of 12%, with falls of 15% for those aged 18 to 24. In addition, many young people cannot find a job at all. Some three quarters of a million under-25s are unemployed, with 25% of them having been unemployed for more than a year. Our young people need work—and on decent contracts; they do not need the rise of the zero-hours contracts that many now find themselves on. The Queen’s Speech does, however, offer a concession on zero-hours contracts, whereby firms will not be able to prevent workers on zero-hours deals from working elsewhere as well—I expect we should be grateful for this.
Let us consider another obscenity that is still occurring: the incidence of people paying below the national minimum wage. The Government have made re-announcement after re-announcement about cracking down on employers who do not pay the minimum wage. They have announced their name and shame policy on several occasions, but very few employers have been named or shamed. The Government need to match Labour’s plans for more robust enforcement. Labour plans to increase the value of the national minimum wage over the next Parliament to a higher proportion of average earnings and to help businesses pay a living wage through Make Work Pay contracts.
The truth is that under this Government, life has become more insecure for people at work, and it has become harder for employees to seek redress. This Queen’s Speech offers little hope to families in Inverclyde who are faced with spending cuts, pay freezes and rising prices. There is little to help the 178,000 unemployed Scots to get a job. In Inverclyde, we have been fortunate to have a Labour MP, a Labour MSP and a Labour council focused on what matters most, which is jobs and work.
A continuation of the future jobs fund has meant that Inverclyde has one of the lowest rates of youth unemployment in Scotland, but we could have achieved more if we did not have a Government in Westminster fixated on the rich and a Government in Holyrood fixated on independence.
If this had been Labour’s Queen's Speech, we would have introduced Bills to make work pay, reform our banks, freeze energy bills and build homes again. Labour would have recognised as wealth creators not just those who set up businesses, but those who put in the hours and do the shifts to make a successful business. Labour recognises that a recovery is created by the many and not the few. We want a plan for jobs. We need to identify industries of the future and to get Britain back to work.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
This Government have totally failed to grasp the appalling situation faced by struggling individuals and families who remain unemployed or in insecure work. The Queen’s Speech offers little hope to the almost one in four young people in London who are unemployed. Nationally, 850,000 young people remain unemployed, and 975,000 young people are not in employment, education or training. This business-as-usual approach by the Government continues to put at risk the hopes and aspirations of our young people and shatters the hopes of another generation.
In my constituency, 42% of young people live in poverty. The figures released this week by the Government’s own commission estimates that 3.2 million children will be in poverty by 2020. It is said that two-thirds of those children will live in households in which at least one person is in work. We desperately need a more ambitious approach by this Government to tackle worklessness, unemployment and insecurity and low pay at work.
We should make no mistake that unemployment and insecure and low-paid work remain a massive problem in this country. London’s unemployment rate is still 12% higher than the national average. Although it has seen huge growth in recent months, there has been a failure by both the London government and the national Government to ensure that our young people and the unemployed benefit from the job opportunities. This could be addressed today, but there is great complacency. We need better training, more apprenticeships and more opportunities to get people into work.
In my constituency, the Work programme is still a categorical failure—less than 10% of young people who go on that programme achieve a proper jobs outcome. I raised this matter with the Work and Pensions Secretary a year ago. Although the numbers have improved slightly, they are still not good enough, and there is great complacency in his Department in sorting it out. Why is so much money being wasted, and why are no new job opportunities being provided for young people up and down the country, including in areas such as mine?
Many Members have spoken about the 1.4 million people who are on zero-hours contracts. We need to see action by this Government to tackle the exploitation that goes on in certain sectors with zero-hours contracts and other similar contracts, particularly in the care sector. I met care workers in my constituency who cannot earn enough on these contracts to pay their rent and pay for their food in some weeks. In the 21st century and one of the richest economies in the world, that is a disgrace.
It falls on us all to ensure that we address these kinds of scandal, and that is why it is deeply disappointing that the Government have failed to take action and introduce the appropriate legislation to protect people from such exploitation. The Queen’s Speech should have provided a clear target to improve the minimum wage and should have addressed our point about introducing minimum wage legislation to improve average earnings.
The Government have done nothing in the Queen’s Speech to address the real concerns of my constituents on the value and security of work and nothing for people across the country who face insecurity at work and have little hope or prospect of getting a job. They have shown themselves incapable of ensuring that many of these people get a decent wage and can provide for their families. The Queen’s Speech is meagre in its ambition and offers little hope to the millions of people who remain unemployed or in insecure work, struggling to make ends meet. I hope that the Government will think again, stop being complacent and get their act together to get those who are not in work back to work and to support those who face insecurity and low pay in work.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
In the limited time available to me, I will look at the Queen’s Speech and jobs and work through the eyes of my constituents—the people who come to talk to me in my office and bring me casework—and what I hear as I go around. The Business Secretary, who is now in his place, started off a little grumpy, saying that we were not talking enough about today’s unemployment figures. I will certainly talk about the unemployment figures in Blackpool and praise the modest reduction in the overall number of people out of work and the very modest reduction in the number of people out of work for more than 12 months, but the devil, as always, is in the detail.
The unemployment rate in Blackpool is still twice the UK average and 50% more than the north-west average. We have always had challenges, like many coastal towns, with part-time and seasonal work and low skills, but the way in which the Government have failed to tackle those issues has exacerbated the problem enormously. Great work is being done by our small and medium-sized employers, by Blackpool council, by the “Build It” unit, which gets people back into construction, and by our further education colleges, and I have tried to get things moving, in my own modest way, with the skills fair we held last year: some 450 people turned up and we had 44 exhibitors, and we will repeat that event next year. The reality, though, is that we are not moving in anywhere near a strong or fast enough way.
If we want to know why this “recovery”, so widely talked about by the coalition, is not being felt on the ground, perhaps we should look at the TUC’s “Economic Quarterly Report”, which has just come out. It rightly talks about the continuing under-use of resources and the fact that 1.4 million people in part-time jobs say that their first choice would have been full-time work—a figure 700,000 higher than the typical pre-recession level. We need to look much more carefully at why people are going into self-employment, where there has been a big increase. What I and many Members know anecdotally is that many people, particularly women, are going into self-employment because they have lost their full-time or part-time jobs—often, their job has been outsourced. Their incomes, as the TUC reports, can be modest indeed: the average annual income from self-employment is less than £10,000 for women.
There has been a lot of discussion today about the minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, which are big issues for us in Blackpool. There is also the issue of low-hours contracts, which the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has taken up and which particularly affects women. If we want to address those issues, we have to take real measures, not the perfunctory measures on zero-hours contracts that have been suggested, particularly at a time when the reduction in the cost of living gap is modest. In fact, figures today from the Office for National Statistics and the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that it is becoming even more modest.
As we know, one key thing is to get young people into skills training and then into decent, meaningful employment. However, as the shadow Secretary of State said, the figures still show that the majority of the significant increase in employment has been among the over-25s. The traineeships programme, which we supported and which the Government quite rightly said was really important, has been a fiasco so far. It has not been promoted properly, and it took the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Work and Pensions months and months to get an agreement on the 16-hour rule. The programme is still not being promoted properly, it is still not clear and we now have a situation in which the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, in a panic about the take-up, proposes to reduce the time involved to as little as three weeks. The disincentives, the problems that people face in getting into work, which I have seen in my Jobcentre Plus in Blackpool, and the sanctioning process are doing nothing to help.
This Government are doing too little for younger people, but they are also doing too little for the 40-somethings and the 50-somethings in my constituency who want to reskill and retrain properly. The Government have got the balance wrong between stuffing people into short-term, low-skilled jobs, which are often temporary, and having a strategy that will produce real growth, real skills and real jobs for those people.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The debate that we have called today and the amendment that we are now considering are based on the values and ideals that brought the Labour party into being. They are about securing for all people in this country the dignity of a decent day’s pay for a hard day’s work, so that people can both provide for their family and spend time with them, sharing in the wealth and prosperity that we all help to create. That is why the last Labour Government faced down those on the Conservative Benches who said that extreme low pay was a fact of life and who were happy to live in a world where there were adverts in jobcentres such as the one pointed out to me by a constituent of mine recently. It was advertising for a security guard and it read, “£1 an hour. Uniform provided. Bring your own dog.”
Labour Members were not happy with that world. We set up the Low Pay Commission and we legislated for the national minimum wage, which for the first time put a legal floor, and a rising floor, under the wages of millions of workers, particularly women, below which their wages could not fall.
Today, however, we need to learn from and build on that success. Since this Government took office we have seen the national minimum wage fall by 5% in real terms in just four years and the number of workers stuck on low pay has soared to well over five million. That is more than one in five workers, and one in four women, who are paid less than a living wage.
That is one of many symptoms of an economy that is just not working for working people today. Along with the 1.5 million people on zero-hours contracts, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) mentioned at the beginning of this debate, there are also 1.4 million people in part-time work who desperately want to work full-time; 600,000 people on temporary contracts who desperately want a permanent job; and numerous reports of a pervasive sense of insecurity, which affects not only the lowest paid but workers right up the income spectrum, including those in what were traditionally seen as middle-class or professional occupations.
We have had a number of contributions from hon. Members about the impact that this is having on their constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) spoke about real wage falls, particularly for young people, while my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke about youth unemployment and the lack of prospects for so many of her constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) quoted Bevan and Beveridge in his speech, and spoke about the Government’s policies leading to extremes.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) spoke about the living wage, but also about the insecurity that so many of her constituents face, with 21% paid less than a living wage. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) spoke about how this Government’s programme was just too timid, and said that they must do much more both to tackle the abuse of zero-hours contracts and to stop this recovery being one that leaves far too many people behind. He speaks with a great track record, having done so much to campaign on rights for temporary and agency workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) spoke about job insecurity, particularly in seaside towns, and the use of sanctions, which often go too far and penalise the wrong people. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) spoke about the gender pay gap and how it is often women who suffer the most. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made an impassioned speech about zero-hours contracts and the restriction of justice that so many people feel. He made an important point about the disconnect that so many ordinary people feel between them and politics and Parliament, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) spoke about last week. That is something we must all be aware of and address.
As well as resulting in so much indignity for so many people, the challenges we face also pile pressure on to our social security system, with taxpayers left to foot the bill for wages that do not cover the cost of living and insecure and irregular earnings making it harder for people to keep up with their rent, arrange a mortgage, save for a pension or do all the other things that so many of us take for granted. The bill paid by taxpayers for people being paid less than the living wage has been estimated at a staggering £2.4 billion a year, including £750 million in extra tax credits and £370 million in extra housing benefit. The cost to taxpayers of the number of people stuck in part-time jobs who want to work full time is now £4.6 billion, including £1.7 billion in additional housing benefit, with the cost of housing benefit for people in work rising by a staggering 66% since this Government came to office.
All in all, over this Parliament this Government are set to spend £13 billion more than they budgeted for on benefits and tax credits because too many people have been left out of work for too long and because the squeeze on wages has been so severe. Expenditure on in-work benefits and tax credits is set to go on rising in real terms over the years ahead. That is the price that we are all paying, and will continue to pay, for this Government’s failure to secure a recovery that benefits everybody.
The impact of that on people is so stark, as has been mentioned in other speeches today. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) spoke about her constituents feeling left behind, despite the fact that the economy is now starting to grow again. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) made an incredibly powerful speech about the growth of payday lenders and the fact that nobody, especially those in work, should have to rely on that sort of credit to be able to feed their family and pay the bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) spoke about an alternative world where credit unions are used more widely and supported more and about saving through the payroll, which I think was an important contribution in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) spoke about the fact that far too many people in all our constituencies are being forced to go to food banks in order to support their families.
That is putting strain on our social fabric and the functioning of our democracy, as more and more people are feeling left out and cut out. The gains of growth are going to a privileged few and many are feeling left behind. No one in this House can be happy with the turnout in the local and European election just three weeks ago. If we are to turn that around and restore people’s faith that voting can make a difference, we need to show those who are feeling sidelined and short-changed that we understand their plight and that we will take action to address their worries and problems.
We have heard powerful speeches today about the problems faced by people in low-paid and insecure work, but we have also heard powerful speeches about businesses in our communities doing great things, employing people and growing their businesses. We need to build a stronger and better balanced economy in which growth and prosperity are more fairly shared. I therefore welcomed the speech we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, who spoke about apprenticeships. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) spoke about not enough young people doing vocational subjects at school and college and the need to improve and reinvigorate our careers service.
My hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke about regional policy, local enterprise partnerships, the failure of the regional growth fund and the importance of creating a proper British investment bank. My right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) spoke about trade promotion, manufacturing and the need to put British business first. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke about the creative industries and their impact on our communities and on jobs.
We also heard speeches about small businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) talked about the red tape facing many small businesses and the costs that it imposes on them but also on Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) gave a plug to Danczuk’s Deli and spoke about the problems with business rates and the need for a British investment bank.
We also heard some powerful speeches by Government Members, of which I will mention just three. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) spoke powerfully about businesses in their constituencies and the good that they are doing in creating jobs.
Those speeches show the difference that can be made and that Labour can make. It is time to set an ambitious five-year target for the national minimum wage so that we narrow the gap between the minimum wage and average earnings over the life of the next Parliament. That would be the effect of the amendment, which would ensure that those who take the shifts and put in the hours in some of the toughest jobs in our economy have a chance of building a decent life for themselves and their families. A Labour Government would beef up enforcement of the national minimum wage, with new powers for local authorities to investigate infractions and larger fines of £50,000 for non-payment. We would also take action to end the abuse of zero-hour contracts, and crack down on agencies that use migrant labour and discriminatory recruitment and working practices to evade and undermine minimum employment standards.
All these measures form an integral and complementary part of the wider path that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham spoke about, which would secure increased investment in infrastructure and innovation and support the creation of good-quality, high-skilled, well-rewarded jobs and apprenticeships across the country. We need to build an economy that can succeed in the global race to the top on quality and productivity instead of trying to win a race to the bottom on wages and working conditions—sadly, that seems to be the limit of this Government’s ambitions.
We heard evasion and excuses from Government Members, in many cases going back to the arguments of the 1980s and 1990s. The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) even suggested that we should be careful about treating employers who do not pay the national minimum wage too harshly in case they did it by mistake. Well, I do not think that is good enough.
Alok Sharma
I hope that the hon. Lady listened to my speech in full. I welcomed the fact that we should be clamping down on rogue employers but said that we also need to make sure that employers who make genuine, one-off mistakes should not necessarily be penalised for that.
Rachel Reeves
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is so lenient on people who over-claim benefits. I think we need to get tough on people who are not paying the minimum wage to their employees. It is against the law, it is the wrong thing to do, and it puts pressures on those employees’ families that they should not have to face.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that over the past year the richest 1% have increased their share of national income from 8.2% to 9.8%. The top 1% have almost 10% of our national income, while 27 million taxpayers who make up the bottom 90% have seen their share of income fall. Wages have fallen further and further behind prices, as we saw again today, and the number of working families in poverty is set to soar. Only today, the latest figures from the ONS showed nominal pay growing by just 0.7% a year at a time when inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, was running at 1.8%.
Earlier this week, a report from the Trussell Trust highlighted an increasing number of people in work who rely on their food banks. On Monday, the Government’s own commission on child poverty reported that
“twice as many poor children now live in working homes than in workless homes”
and called for
“real action to tackle low pay, create more secure jobs and enable more people in low-paid jobs to progress in work.”
The same report says that the Government’s latest poverty strategy
“falls far short of what is needed”,
highlighting in particular the
“lack of new action on in-work poverty”,
as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck. I am afraid that it is the same old story from the same old Tories: tax cuts for the rich and pay cuts for the poor.
Last month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North and I met a mum called Rachel Palmer who is affected by some of the things we have spoken about. She works hard so that she can provide for her young son, but she struggles to make ends meet on a minimum wage job in retail. She fought back tears as she told us how hard it was. She said, “You cut all your outgoings, shop at cheaper supermarkets, make batches of food and put them in the freezer, and tour car boot sales and charity shops, but still there’s not enough money.” She said there are lots of people like her who do the right thing and go out to work but “can’t afford simple things.” She said, “You have to choose: do you give your child a nutritious meal, or do you let your standards drop?”
No one should have to make those sorts of choices for themselves or their children. Rachel Palmer is doing the best she can for herself and her young son, and we in this House need to do better for her and her family and millions more families in her position.
This Government have made it clear that they are content with the status quo. Labour Members are determined to aim higher. If the Government will not do more to help those who are struggling to find work and those who are working all the hours they can to provide for themselves and their families but are still struggling, the next Labour Government will. For millions of hard-working families up and down the country, that change cannot come soon enough. I urge this House to support our amendment.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
It is always a pleasure and an honour to conclude a debate on the Gracious Speech. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to oppose the amendment, which I will address later. I congratulate Members on their speeches. I have sat here for some time listening to them and the quality of speeches by Members on both sides of the House was of the highest order, particularly given the time constraint, which was imposed for good and obvious reasons. I congratulate in particular those who had to change their speeches after being addressed by the occupant of the Chair.
I congratulate and agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Stourbridge (Margot James), who spoke about the importance of youth employment and the way in which we are now driving youth employment up and unemployment down. On support for growth in manufacturing employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said that manufacturing employment is now growing and improving after a fall of 2.5 million under the previous Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills said in his opening remarks, we are getting more balance in the economy as a result of the work we have been doing, which is different from what was going on before the recession.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who talked about the small business measures and measures to get rid of excess zero-hours contracts, which my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary spoke about earlier. Many Opposition Members spoke passionately, and rightly so, about excesses in employment, particularly with regard to zero-hours contracts, but, as my right hon. Friend said, they never once addressed zero-hours contracts throughout their time in government. To listen to them, one would think that zero-hours contracts were an innovation created by this Government and that they began some time last year, but they did not: they were running under the previous Government, and it is only this Government and this Business Secretary who will address the matter, which is what Labour should have done.
As I recall, the last time that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and I spoke in the same debate, he urged me to vote against the Government. I did, and look what happened. Today, he advised us that we should borrow more, but I do not think that I will listen to him this time, if he does not mind—it got me into more trouble than I like to think about last time. However, I welcome him to his place and recognise that he also attacked the previous Government for the amount of quantitative easing they oversaw, which he said was wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) was making an effective speech about international matters before he was interrupted. I commend him for managing to get his speech out, regardless of the change in the interpretation of the rules. He made a really important point about the taking of Mosul, which is a terrible issue and we need to deal with it.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) welcomed the rise in employment in Wales. I will pass on to the Transport Secretary his views about the electrification of the railway to Swansea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) spoke very well about the increase in small business. He rewrote his speech as a result of the ruling from the Chair, and I congratulate him—I do not know whether he is in his place—on making a brilliant five-minute speech with no warning at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) spoke about the good results from business men in his area, and particularly about making sure that small business is supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) also spoke about that, as well as about the increase in people’s disposable income—that is true—and economic models showing that the UK is now growing faster than any other country.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) spoke about abuses of zero-hours contracts. In relation to what she raised earlier, there is no mandation on zero-hours contracts and there are no sanctions. I provide that for clarification and so that she is aware of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) welcomed the fall in unemployment and the grant of assisted area status for Fleetwood, which I pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who is in his place. My hon. Friend said we should push on with shale gas, and I fully agree that it has potential benefits for us all.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) spoke about vocational training. I welcome the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Reading West (Alok Sharma) and for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who spoke about real falls in unemployment and rises in employment, particularly youth employment, in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) spoke about growing business and manufacturing.
I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). He made me feel very hungry, as I am sure she did, by talking about Danczuk’s Deli. I hope that we can give it more advertising—I can promise him that something in return would be very welcome after three hours on the Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said that the Federation of Small Businesses had welcomed the Bill on small businesses in the Queen’s Speech as a “landmark Bill”. I agree that the Bill to protect small business is a landmark measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) spoke about the importance of the fall in unemployment in his constituency. Youth unemployment there has fallen by 41%, which I welcome. Apprenticeships in his area have risen by 27% since he became its Member. I am not sure whether that fact is directly connected to him, but it will not do him any harm in his area.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) on the very strong and powerful points she made about taking the burden off small businesses.
In their opening and closing speeches, Opposition Members made no reference whatever to one of the big and important features of the Queen’s Speech, which is the continuation of pensions reform. I will say a few words about that because it is very important. I start by paying tribute to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). It is way past time for him to be made right honourable, given the work that he has done—I say that to my hon. Friends—because the work that we have done in concert will leave behind a serious platform of pensions reform. The House will come to recognise that and the fact that his work will have rewarded many people. Obviously, we are ensuring that it pays to work, but also, most importantly, that it pays to save, which is one of our major platforms.
Let me just remind the House what we have introduced since being in office. There is the triple lock on the basic state pension; it is worth about £440 more in 2014-15 than it would have been under uprating by earnings, which was the process we inherited. Under automatic enrolment, more than 3 million people have already joined pension schemes, and there are more to come. We have capped rip-off charges, banned hidden charges and set minimum quality standards. Vitally, there is a new state pension, which is set above the means-test level, so that those who have contributed at the full rate for 35 years are guaranteed a decent minimum income.
We are now going further, with a pensions Bill that will pave the way for innovation, competition and choice. We will introduce new flexibilities, trusting individuals to use their own money in retirement as they see fit, not as the Government tell them to do. Our consultation on guaranteed guidance closes today. We intend to strike a balance between impartiality and deliverability, alongside robust standards and monitoring.
At the same time, we are enabling the creation of a defined ambition pension, which is wholly compatible with the new flexibilities, to facilitate greater risk pooling, while offering savers greater certainty. There was a degree of confusion on the Opposition Benches when the Minister of State said that he had been looking at that idea for some years. My shadow, the hon. Member for Leeds West, tweeted on 1 June:
“I said last week Labour will legislate to introduce collective pensions. Days later, ministers are following suit”.
I did not know we acted that fast. After all the years that my hon. Friend has been considering the idea, the hon. Lady suggests that we owe it to her that we have brought it in. She recently attacked the Labour leadership for not showing enough passion, but she must not confuse passion with accuracy. I notice that we have the pair of them here: the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.
When we talked about freeing up annuities, there was chaos among the Opposition. During his speech on the Queen’s Speech, the Leader of the Opposition did not mention pensions reform. The next day, the shadow Chancellor said only that Labour would look at the Government’s proposals—he did not tweet at all. The day after that, the hon. Member for Leeds West said that she supported the reforms. By the weekend, the shadow Business Secretary backtracked and said:
“I’m not going to sign a blank piece of paper on your show”.
Later the same day, my shadow also backtracked, saying that Labour supported the reforms, but that they did not go far enough. The Opposition have been in complete chaos and confusion about these landmark pension reforms—some of the most important that will ever be introduced. The reason why they have been in chaos is that they really do not trust people to dispose of their own money, which they have worked for and saved, whereas the Government do.
Throughout the shadow Business Secretary’s speech, he would not accept that any of the problems that we have had over the past four years were caused by Labour’s great recession. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills reminded him—and it is worth reminding him again—that the recession that happened on Labour’s watch cost the British economy £112 billion and cost 750,000 people their jobs. Youth unemployment increased by nearly a half, long-term unemployment almost doubled in just two years, 5 million people were left on out-of-work benefits and one in five households had no one in work. The shadow Business Secretary wonders why we want to go on talking about that. We do so because we do not want anyone out there ever to forget that Labour almost destroyed the British economy.
Mr Duncan Smith
No, I do not have time.
Under this Government, there is record employment. More than 30 million people are in work. Employment is up this quarter, with the largest rise on record. It is up 1.7 million since the election. Record numbers of women are in work. There is record private sector employment, which is up by 2 million since the election. Three quarters of the rise in employment is made up by full-time jobs. Over the past year, more than three quarters of jobs went to UK nationals, reversing the damaging trend of Labour’s last five years in office.
I close today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech with a very simple point: we cannot trust Labour to be in control of the British economy ever again. The Government are helping people into jobs and ensuring that those who work hard and save all their lives are properly rewarded. To set the record completely straight, there are now more people in work than ever, more women in work than ever and more people in private sector work than ever. Youth and long-term unemployment is falling, and we have the lowest rate of workless households since records began. The Queen’s Speech allows us to build on our success, not Labour’s failure. I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
NHS Health Services in Guisborough, Skelton, Brotton and Park End (Middlesbrough)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the Petitioners believe in fighting to defend the NHS, believe in fighting to defend the NHS services in East Cleveland and Park End, Middlesbrough, and oppose cuts inflicted by the Conservative-led government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012; further that the Petitioners believe that proposals to scrap GP services at Skelton Medical Centre should be abandoned; further that proposals to scrap GP services at Park End Medical Centre should also be abandoned; further that the Petitioners believe that South Tees clinical commissioning group’s plans to close East Cleveland Hospital’s and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injuries units is short-sighted given the £30 million deficit of South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and further that the Petitioners condemn South Tees clinical commissioning group’s decision to close Skelton’s NHS walk-in centre.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage NHS England and South Tees clinical commissioning group to reverse plans to close Park End Medical Centre, Skelton Medical Centre, its NHS walk-in centre and East Cleveland and Guisborough Hospital’s minor injury units.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001357]
Localised Health Care
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The new chief executive of the NHS was right two weeks ago to highlight the need to reshape the NHS around the priorities of patients, particularly elderly patients. As Simon Stevens pointed out:
“Two thirds of hospital patients are over retirement age.”
A solution to his challenge could be piloted in the perhaps unlikely setting of the Cambridgeshire fens, a rural area where we need clearer leadership in reshaping services in the way he articulated in that speech. Patients in North East Cambridgeshire continue to travel to hospitals for appointments that could take place in the community or even in their own homes. That would save them transport and parking costs, be less exhausting and more convenient, reduce the risk of secondary infections in hospitals and increase the likelihood that family and friends could support them throughout the pathway of their treatment.
In parallel, GPs are currently under considerable pressure in rural communities such as North East Cambridgeshire, where they are having to juggle the issues of accessibility, quality and affordability with the national challenge of rising demand, an older population and increasingly complex health needs. Yet GPs continue to undertake work that could be prevented through better use of other NHS resource, lightening our GPs’ workload and streamlining part of their workload through the use of equipment and better IT. However, too often the fractured lines of accountability in the NHS and the different tiers are getting in the way of the urgent need to localise health delivery outputs so that patients can receive treatment in the community and at home, rather than incurring journeys to hospital.
I want to start with a paradox. You may recall, Mr Speaker—perhaps with a shudder, as though it was a bad dream, rather than with the fond sigh of recalling happy memories—that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 was debated extensively in this House two years ago. However, once legislation becomes law, there is a tendency for Parliament to assume that the job is done—that it has been implemented and that therefore nothing further is required. But if we look at the variance in performance of clinical commissioning groups—and, indeed, NHS regional teams—and how the 2012 Act has been implemented, we see that much work remains to be done.
At the heart of the 2012 Act was a great advantage to patients. It was about empowering GPs and clinicians, who best understand the needs of their local community and patients, to act as informed buyers on their behalf, to drive innovation, challenge existing practice, change behaviours and shift treatment from hospitals into the community. The danger is that the great advantage of that legislation, which was debated at great length under your stewardship, Mr Speaker, has now slightly slipped from focus, as the media caravan and the political debate move on to other things. We are at risk of missing out on the central prize, which is how better to innovate and deliver things in a way that advantages patients more.
I want to share three examples of where the current delivery of patient services appears illogical. The first concerns patients suffering from the distress of cancer—you will have them in your constituency, Mr Speaker—and facing tiring journeys to hospital. I had the honour of opening at St George’s surgery in Littleport last month oncology services delivered in the community by Addenbrooke’s nurses: instead of the patients travelling to Cambridge, the nurses come to deliver those services in a more convenient and friendly setting. But where is the drive to ensure that that model is now rolled out by Hinchingbrooke nurses into Doddington, by Peterborough hospital nurses into Whittlesey, by King’s Lynn nurses into the North Cambs hospital? Where is the urgency, while cancer patients continue to make those journeys at cost—in petrol, parking, tiredness and other ways in which their needs are not met? It is time that we accelerated that change to meet the challenge that Simon Stevens has set out.
Secondly, there is intravenous therapy—the delivery of antibiotics through a drip. You will no doubt be staggered, Mr Speaker, to know that patients in Cambridgeshire are being admitted to hospital for five to seven days simply to have antibiotics three times a day, when we could train community nurses to deliver that service in the rural community. That is not only a huge waste of money but, more important, we are putting patients at risk of secondary infections in hospital, as well as providing a less convenient service for them. When some areas of the country have shifted in that way, I cannot see any reason why it has not been adopted in Fenland in north-east Cambridgeshire. It is simply illogical that we still require patients to be admitted for such a straightforward treatment.
A third area is near-patient blood testing. Again, Mr Speaker, this will no doubt be an issue that GPs in your constituency have to deal with. If someone has a suspected blood clot, they are often currently put in an ambulance and sent to hospital. Yet for just £3,000, we could have machines in GP surgeries to provide the results straight away. It would not take that many saved ambulance journeys and the cost of admissions to hospital to start to pay that back. It might be that businesses in the community would be willing to work with the GP practices to deliver that equipment, but the leadership is not accelerating the roll-out of such an approach.
Next week, supported by my local papers—the Cambs Times, Wisbech Standard, Fenland Citizen and Ely Standard—I will launch a community campaign, identifying a range of issues, such as the three I have provided a flavour of today, in respect of which patients want these services back in the community to deliver better clinical outcomes in a more cost-effective way. It seems remarkable that this holy grail, sought by the NHS, is not being grasped with the urgency it demands.
In parallel, we need to recognise that our GPs are under significant pressure. Let me flag up three areas where innovation and reform are needed. The first is health trainers, which have been proven as a means of relieving and preventing pressure on GPs. Yet in Chatteris, Doddington and Manea—areas with significant health needs—we still do not have health trainers to relieve pressure on our GPs. The Minister will know that the National Audit Office highlighted how smoking cessation and other programmes have an important role to play in addressing health inequalities among different regions.
Secondly, I am sure you will be as surprised as I was, Mr Speaker, to discover that within Cambridgeshire the area with the highest health needs is the area that gets the least money. I defy anyone, including the Minister, to explain that. It is largely down to historical reasons and the fact that the clinical commissioning group needs to reallocate funding. The Cornerstone practice in March receives just £62.50 per patient. The county average is between £75 and £80, and the highest-paid practice in Cambridgeshire receives £120. I know that the Minister faces constraints in terms of the overall budget, and of course the Government deserve credit for the fact that NHS spending in England—unlike that in Wales—has been ring-fenced, but I think that the funding allocation needs to be examined.
Finally, let me say something about a much maligned Cinderella service. At present, 65% of the children in my constituency who need mental health services must wait longer than 18 weeks. I know that, as a clinician, my hon. Friend will recognise the seriousness of that. As he will appreciate, it can lead to self-harm and even to suicide, and can damage life chances by affecting exam results, for instance. Furthermore, there are still problems relating to the handover from adolescent to adult mental care. The issue of mental health simply must be addressed if we are to tackle some of the health inequalities in North East Cambridgeshire, and, above all, if we are to meet the challenge set by Simon Stevens in relation to the reshaping of our services. I know that the Health Committee is examining mental health provision, and I hope that it will take account of the points that I have made.
The Health and Social Care Act allows us to deliver the benefits that I know my constituents want by reshaping community health care. The chief executive of the NHS has recognised the need to use levers within the service—such as the assurance role of NHS England, and the role of clinical commissioning groups—to deliver that reshaping, and my campaign next week will demonstrate that patients themselves want that to happen. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices to help the leadership to accelerate the innovation that is needed, so that community health care, which is currently languishing in the slow lane of change, can deliver the more patient-centred, localised treatment that will provide not only the best possible clinical outcomes for patients in North East Cambridgeshire, but the best possible value for money.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) for securing the debate and for his strong advocacy on behalf of his constituents and local patients. As he has continually reminded the House since his arrival here—I arrived at the same time—we, as a coalition Government, understand the importance of spending public money wisely and investing every possible penny in front-line patient care.
My hon. Friend raised a number of points, and I did not disagree with a word of what he said. In particular, he was right to emphasise the need for a radical transformation of the way in which we deliver care over the next five to 10 years. We need to deliver more care in the community, closer to people’s homes. It is a question not just of good health care economics, but of good patient care. It is right for people with complex care needs—people with diabetes, dementia and cancer—to be cared for as close to home as possible. That requirement is all the more acute and important in some of our more rural communities, such as my hon. Friend’s constituency in the fens.
We should bear in mind the challenge laid down by the former chief executive of the NHS and echoed by the current chief executive, Simon Stevens. We must ensure that we spend the NHS budget more wisely, and direct more money to front-line patient care. There have been real-terms increases in the budget, and, as a coalition, we are all proud of the fact that we are investing more money in the NHS even in difficult economic times. Nevertheless, we must ensure that that money is spent more wisely, and that the way in which care is delivered continues to become more efficient. We have an ageing demographic, and the effects of that are often experienced more acutely in rural areas. Our technology is continually improving, and patients rightly have rising expectations of the quality of care that they will receive. We must therefore ensure that we deliver care more effectively, and in a more patient-centred way.
To meet that challenge, more needs to be done on NHS procurement at local and national levels, as my hon. Friend highlighted. The Government support that. We need to do more in the health service to ensure that we reduce unnecessary administration and bureaucratic costs and back-office services. He highlighted that as a challenge for his local health economy.
It is crucial that we transform the way we deliver care. That means breaking down silos in Cambridgeshire and elsewhere, particularly between the hospital sector—Addenbrooke’s and Peterborough city hospital, for example—and the health care that is commissioned and delivered in the community by CCGs. That also applies to the social care sector run by the local authority. It is important that Cambridgeshire county council—my hon. Friend outlined the challenges—plays a key role in helping to transform the ways in which services are delivered. Sometimes, it will not be possible to decide whether an elderly and frail person in Cambridgeshire should receive care that is provided by social services or by the NHS. It is the same person; it is the same patient, and it is time that local authorities and the NHS dropped the silo working mentality, worked together and focused the money and attention on the patient. The better care fund that the Government are setting up will come into force next year. That will provide about £3.8 billion specifically to promote better integration of health and social care. I am sure that will be of great benefit in Cambridgeshire, including in the rural communities that my hon. Friend represents.
From an NHS perspective, there are three components to transforming the way services are delivered and to breaking down those silos. It is important we have the right leadership on the ground to deliver improvements. I know as a fellow east of England MP that we have had challenges sometimes in that regard. We need the right leaders to drive change. My hon. Friend was right to highlight that the changes under the Health and Social Care Act mean that we have clinical leadership through CCGs. That will bring benefits because decisions and resource allocations are being made by clinicians who understand where the money is best spent to improve patient care.
We also need the leadership from NHS England teams at an area level to be effective. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that all MPs in Cambridgeshire and elsewhere need to hold those local area teams to account. We need to ensure that they are working to do their bit to support the clinical leadership on the ground at CCG level.
Hospital providers at Addenbrooke’s, Peterborough city hospital and elsewhere need to come together and work with the CCGs to deliver care. When we talk about delivering care in the community, one of the key aspects is having a work force who work across hospitals and the community—across both primary and secondary care. Far too often, a work force who work in, say, cancer services are based just in the hospital. In commissioning services, we need to recognise that the work force need to be commissioned across primary and secondary care. One example would be to have more specialist nurses in diabetes who not only work at the hospital base but are commissioned across the community. It is important to ensure that my hon. Friend’s CCGs work with the hospital provider, particularly Addenbrooke’s, a centre of international excellence, to deliver more holistic care for people with long-term conditions, and that the work force are not just based in the hospital but go out to where the patients are in the community. That is key to delivering improvements in care.
I want to highlight some of the important local issues that my hon. Friend has raised. I was pleased to hear him make the point about the St George’s surgery and that chemotherapy services are being delivered in the community. His constituents should be proud that they have a GP surgery that is delivering that sort of care in the community. Some of the sickest people, who often struggle to travel to hospitals, are being looked after close to home and receiving high-quality care in the local GP surgery. That sort of care needs to be regularly offered in the next five to 10 years in many more GP surgeries—not as an exemplar, but as a regular example of what good practice and good health care looks like. That is transforming services and delivering more care in the community. My hon. Friend should be very proud of the part he has played in helping to make that a reality, and proud of the fact that his constituents have a service many other people will be looking forward to having in the future.
We must also have the right preventive care so that people who do not need to go to hospital do not go there. My hon. Friend talked about intravenous therapy. Someone with an infection from a leg ulcer, for instance, who will need IV antibiotics could be given them in the community. Traditionally those patients have ended up in hospital not because that is the right place for them to be, but because the care in the community to provide IV antibiotic therapy was not available. That is not good for patients, nor is it good health care economics—it is expensive for the NHS. That is exactly the sort of service older people with complex care needs require, particularly in rural communities. I know my hon. Friend’s CCGs will want to prioritise that in the months ahead.
My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of having close-to-home blood testing facilities. Many older people may be on warfarin for atrial fibrillation or other medical conditions. It is important that for that, and other simple blood tests, the person is treated and looked after close to home by their general practice. In rural areas, particularly in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, where my constituency is, the GP surgery is often the hub of care, so the more we can do to provide care in those environments and close to home, the better it will be for patients.
We will also find that more patients will turn up for their appointments. One of the major causes of non-attendance at appointments in rural areas is that frail older people struggle to get to where the care is. If that care is delivered by their GP much closer to home, that saves the health service money and makes those services much more accessible. Every general practice should be offering simple services such as blood testing and supporting patients with the management of warfarin. I am pleased my hon. Friend will be championing a campaign to make this a reality throughout Cambridgeshire.
If we are to deliver better services in the community, we must have the right training in place for our work force. We need to have a work force who have the right skills to look after people with complex care needs. Under our health care reforms, we now have Health Education England, with a £5 billion budget. At a local level there are now local education and training boards, which are responsible for delivering the right sort of training to staff in each locality. A particular priority for the local education training board in the east of England is recognising the rurality of places such as Cambridgeshire and making sure there is specialist training in dementia and other care areas that addresses the needs of rural communities and ensures that people can be treated close to home. We must have the staff with the right skills to make sure that that happens.
In that respect, there will be more specialist training for GPs in mental health and children’s health care. Much of GPs’ work load is in those areas, and it is extraordinary that in the past not all GPs have had the right training. Thanks to the changes we have made through the mandate to HEE, in future we will ensure not only that there are bespoke courses for GPs to specialise in these areas, but that the whole skill set of all GPs going through training is improved to provide better community-based care. That will bring benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituents.
My hon. Friend is right that the NHS has received real-terms increases in funding in this Parliament, and we are proud to have delivered that. Every CCG, including in Cambridgeshire, will be receiving increased funding. I can understand the frustration that perhaps the progress on changing the funding formula in accordance with the independent review findings has not been as quick as some of us representing more rural communities would have liked, but that is moving in the right direction. The funding formula is now set independently, away from political interference, and according much more to health care need rather than political drivers Ministers or others may set. We will see a funding formula that will be allocated much more in line with local health care needs, but NHS England will have an opportunity again this year to examine rurality as a factor in allocating the funding formula.
I hope my hon. Friend is reassured by some of the points I have made. More importantly, what has come from this debate is that we have seen that he is a champion for the local NHS and for local patients. In his work on the Public Accounts Committee, not only does he recognise the importance of spending taxpayers’ money wisely and putting money into front-line patient care, but he understands the long-term challenges involved in transforming care. We need much more collaboration between different GP surgeries. Local commissioners need to lead that, we need more back-office sharing to reduce costs in GP surgeries, and we need better management of estates. We recognise that many GPs are small businesses in their own right, but small businesses may need to work together in a publicly funded health service to realise economies and free up more money to deliver better patient care; and we need to invest in telehealth, telemedicine and the right technology to support people with long-term conditions at home.
We also need to ensure that the better care fund that comes into effect next year is used effectively to join up what social services do with the NHS, to focus more attention on the patient and to break down the historical silos between the NHS and social care. We also need to ensure that commissioners, involved in clinically led commissioning, drive this process. They need to challenge other commissioners to do the right thing and make sure that patients are always at the centre of what happens. That is the objective, it is what needs to happen, and I know that my hon. Friend will be championing the cause locally. The goal is there and I know that he will be at the heart of the debate locally to break down those silos and to transform radically the way care is delivered, because he cares about his local patients, and I know that his local clinical commissioning groups do too.
There will be different ways of doing things in future, but they will of course be to the benefit of patients. I am delighted that he is championing this agenda, and he can count on my full support and the support of the Government in taking it forward. Once again, I congratulate him on securing this debate and on the leadership he is showing to support his local NHS in delivering better care for patients.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Green Investment Bank
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I would like to inform Parliament that I have agreed with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Secretary of State for International Development that the UK Green Investment Bank (GIB) will be working with their Departments to explore the potential for GIB to assist in investment of the UK’s international climate fund (ICF).
GIB has been very successful in mobilising private sector investment into the UK’s green infrastructure and economy—since its official launch in autumn 2012, it has committed £1.3 billion to green projects in the UK, and mobilised an additional £3.3 billion of private sector funds. The projects supported by GIB will, when complete, save 3.5 million tonnes of C02 per year.
At the same time, the Government have ambitious targets for providing support to projects in developing countries that will mitigate climate change or enable communities to adapt to its effects. We have already allocated £3.87 billion to the UK’s ICF to finance such projects. We are keen to explore how the depth of expertise in GIB, and the commercial discipline that it brings to its transactions, can benefit the deployment of climate aid to mitigation projects in developing countries, alongside existing and planned ICF investments including international initiatives such as the green climate fund.
To this end, GIB will be working with the Government over the coming months to assess the feasibility of the GIB developing and managing some ICF projects. This will have no impact on the resources or £3.8 billion of funding which we have allocated to GIB for investment in the UK. GIB remains fully committed to helping the UK meet its domestic climate change goals. Indeed, this additional activity should benefit GIB’S core UK operations as GIB further builds its global reputation both as an expert in project finance for green projects and as a potential manager of other people’s funds.
Should the Government decide to move beyond, to the pilot, we will make a further ministerial statement to Parliament.
Big Lottery Fund (Triennial Review)
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
On 21 November 2013, as Minister with responsibility for Civil Society, I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, Official Report, column 55WS, commencement of the triennial review of the Big Lottery Fund. I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.
The review concludes that the functions performed by the Big Lottery Fund are still required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the fund in line with guidance on good corporate governance and considered the efficiency and effectiveness of the fund. The report, which has been examined by a challenge group, makes recommendations in this respect.
The full report of the review of the Big Lottery Fund can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Private Rented Sector Programme
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
The Government are investing in building a bigger and better private rented sector through the Department for Communities and Local Government’s expanding the private rented sector programme. The programme’s work includes the £3.5 billion private rented sector housing debt guarantee scheme, the £1billion Build to Rent fund and the private rented sector taskforce.
The Build to Rent fund provides development phase finance to large-scale private rented sector projects and is on track to create up to 10,000 new homes for private rent. It will demonstrate the viability of developing and investing in large-scale private rented sector developments. The programme received £1.4 billion of bids under round 1. This round of funding is currently expected to support 2,550 homes across England in locations that include Durham, Liverpool, Manchester and London. Five round 1 projects with a combined value of over £74.5 million are already in contract and will deliver over 1,000 new homes for private rent; construction has already started in Southampton (Centenary Quay) and Manchester (Three Towers), with further round 1 projects undergoing legal work in advance of exchange of contracts.
Bidding for round 2 of the Build to Rent fund was significantly oversubscribed, receiving 126 bids to the value of around £3 billion. Thirty-five projects on the shortlist from round 2 are now going through a competitive due diligence process, with successful bids receiving funding to deliver thousands of new homes. A list of all shortlisted bids has been placed in the Library. Sixteen projects, with a combined value of circa £625 million, are already in detailed due diligence. The shortlist is over-programmed, meaning not all shortlisted projects will receive funding. Shortlisting and due diligence are the first stages of the Build to Rent approval process and the Homes and Communities Agency will continue to work with bidders until exchange of contracts in order to ensure value for money for taxpayers. I anticipate that all round 1 projects will be in contract by the end of June 2014 and the first round 2 contracts are scheduled to be signed by autumn 2014.
In addition to direct funding, the Government’s private rented sector taskforce is continuing to build the private rented sector as an investment market and have identified £10 billion of domestic and foreign investment available in the private rented sector.
The Government propose to guarantee long-term debt raised by housing providers investing in large scale, new build private rented housing projects through the £3.5 billion private rented sector housing debt guarantee scheme. The scheme aims to facilitate the construction of new private rented accommodation through incentivising private sector investment. Specifically, the guarantees will use the Government’s fiscal credibility to reduce the cost of borrowing for private rented sector housing providers.
The Department for Communities and Local Government intends to take on a contingent liability for the guaranteed debt of up to £3.5 billion (nominal value of the guaranteed debt). This is a limit, not a target for the guarantees. How much of it is used will depend on the appetite of those who apply for the guarantees and the quality of the applications. This amount forms part of the £10 billion made available for both housing guarantees schemes. Should demand for private rented sector guarantees exceed £3.5 billion, the Government may make available a greater share of the total £10 billion for private rented sector housing. I will, of course, inform Parliament in a further minute before taking this step.
The Department for Communities and Local Government is open for business to issue direct private rented sector housing debt guarantees and continues to progress discussions with a number of borrowers looking to invest in large-scale developments. Following extensive pre-market engagement, on 18 March 2014, the Department also launched a procurement exercise for a delivery partner for the private rented sector housing debt guarantees scheme, with the aim of increasing access for smaller borrowers and maximising take up of the guarantees. My Department is currently evaluating bids to perform the role and I expect the delivery partner to be in place in autumn 2014 and approving its first borrowers in early 2015.
A departmental minute providing full details of contingent liabilities arising from the issuing of private rented sector housing debt guarantees is being laid before Parliament.
Training Libyan Troops in the UK
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)
On 9 July last year, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the House that the UK had offered to train up to 2,000 Libyan armed forces personnel in basic infantry skills as part of an international commitment with other G8 nations to train a general purpose force to help the Libyan Government disarm and integrate militias and improve the security and stability of the country.
I am pleased to inform the House that today we are starting training for the first tranche (around 325) of Libyan recruits at Bassingbourn Camp. The training, in basic infantry and junior command skills, will be carried out by troops from 3 Scots and will last for 24 weeks.
These recruits have been carefully vetted by the Libyan Government and Home Office officials to ensure that security and immigration controls are maintained and that those selected are representative of all of Libya. We have also started to work with the Libyan Government and international partners on plans for reintegration of trainees after their return to Libya.
In the year since the Prime Minister announced the UK’s commitment to the general purpose force initiative, the unstable political and security situation in Libya has underlined the complex challenges and the need for the international community to support the transition to a stable, open and democratic Libya.
Libya faces many challenges as a result of over four decades of misrule. It will take time for state institutions to become effective and for Libyans to agree on the path of their own democratic transition. The UK, along with our international partners, remains committed to support Libya. The start of the training of the general purpose force is a further testament to this commitment.
National Curriculum
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
On 11 September 2013, I published the new national curriculum for all subjects except for English, mathematics and science at key stage 4. Following a consultation on draft programmes of study for key stage 4 English and mathematics from 2 December 2013 to 3 February 2014, the Department is consulting, until 13 June, on the draft order and regulations that will give effect to the new programmes of study. The final programmes of study are planned to be published by the end of the current school year.
Today, I am publishing for consultation the programme of study for science at key stage 4. The consultation will run until 23 July 2014. On 9 April 2014 we published the new GCSE subject content for science. It is important to consider this programme of study alongside the GCSE subject content to ensure that the curriculum and qualifications are fully coherent.
The programme of study in science at key stage 4 is more challenging. It has been drafted by experts to ensure that it sets expectations that match those in the highest performing jurisdictions. The content is closely aligned to GCSE combined science content. It builds upon and deepens understanding of ideas developed in earlier key stages in the subject disciplines of biology, chemistry and physics. It focuses on the big ideas in science such as evolution and inheritance, the atomic structure and energy and forces and includes new content on developing areas such as the human genome. The working scientifically section emphasises the importance of practical work including experimental skills, analysis and evaluation of data and the understanding and nature of scientific evidence. It makes clear that working scientifically should be embedded within the subject content across all three science disciplines.
The key stage 4 programme of study for science will be introduced from September 2016, alongside first teaching of the new science GCSEs.
Copies of the consultation on the programme of study for key stage 4 science will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Electoral Registration
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon)
(The hon. Member for South West Devon, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission:) The Electoral Commission has today published a report containing an analysis of electoral registration data relating to the 2013 annual canvass—the last household registration canvass in Great Britain. The report also includes an update of its final assessment of the performance of Electoral Registration Officers’ (EROs) performance in 2013.
The Commission reports that overall, the canvass was well run, and the key outcomes from the canvass were similar to those in previous years. The overall level of response to the canvass was 94%, although the absolute number of entries on the registers has declined slightly from December 2012 (the parliamentary register declined by 0.5%, the local government register declined by 0.1%).
The decline in numbers on the registers can be largely attributed to the lower level of electors carried forward by EROs. The Commission reports that EROs have a power, not a duty, to carry electors forward in circumstances where they do not have confirmation that they still live at their previously-registered address. It is for each individual ERO to decide whether to exercise that power at the end of the annual canvass. EROs should make their decision based on their individual, local knowledge, and they should consider the balance between the risk of retaining electors who may no longer be eligible, and the risk of removing electors who are in fact still eligible, meaning they are potentially disenfranchised.
The Commission reports that the decline in the use of carry forward on conclusion of the 2013 canvass can be explained by a decision by some EROs not to exercise their power to carry forward entries in advance of the transition to individual electoral registration (IER), when electors who are currently on the register but have been carried forward will need to go through a separate process in order to remain registered and cannot be automatically transferred to the new IER register following confirmation.
The decisions taken by EROs at the end of the 2013 canvass will change the nature but not the scale of the challenge facing them in the transition to IER. In each case, while the administration process will vary, they will still need to carry out work to target all individuals in their area who are not registered individually, and these individuals will all need to take some action in order to be included on the revised register published on the conclusion of the 2014 canvass.
On 31 March, the Commission published a report on readiness for the transition to IER, which included an assessment of ERO performance in 2013. The Commission noted in that previous report that as the canvass was completed only very shortly before its publication, detailed analysis of the electoral registration data, which informs the Commission’s assessment of ERO performance, was still under way. It also explained the Commission’s expectation that, as was the case in 2011 and 2012, this continuing analysis might identify some further EROs whose canvass activity did not, in practice, meet the standard.
The Commission’s detailed analysis of the registration data has identified that in addition to the five EROs (for Mid Devon, Taunton Deane, Torridge, West Devon and West Somerset) who reported that they did not meet performance standard 3—the house-to-house enquiry standard—in 2013, there are a further 17 EROs who did not ensure that during 2013 all non-responding properties were canvassed in person.
These are the EROs for: Broxbourne Borough council; Castle Point Borough council; Ceredigion County council; Durham County council; East Devon District council; Gwynedd County council; Kingston-upon-Hull City council; Maldon District council; Mid Sussex District council; Northumberland County council; North Devon District council; North Dorset District council; North East Lincolnshire council; North Warwickshire Borough council; Scarborough Borough council; Sedgemoor District council and South Staffordshire council.
This means that the Commission’s final assessment is that 22 EROs (6%) did not meet the standard in 2013. (In 2012, 30 EROs did not meet the standard).
The reasons given by each ERO for not carrying out house-to-house enquiries with all non-responding households are provided within the Commission’s report. The Commission has written specifically to those hon. Members whose ERO(s) have failed to meet the standard and it will soon write to all hon. Members to update them regarding the progress of the transition to IER. This update will include suggested questions which hon. Members may wish to put to their local EROs regarding what practices they follow, and propose to follow in future, in order to keep their electoral registers as complete and accurate as possible.
Although IER will present different challenges from the household registration system—particularly in the unique circumstances of the 2014 write-out and canvass period—house-to-house enquiries will remain a key area of ERO performance which will continue to be of significant importance in ensuring registers are as accurate and complete as possible. The Commission report that they will continue to work with those EROs who did not meet performance standard 3 in 2013 to ensure they have arrangements in place to carry out house-to-house enquiries as required under IER, and will continue to monitor their progress to ensure that they deliver this in practice.
In the event that an ERO does not carry out these enquiries, the Commission will consider all available options to ensure that EROs are carrying out their duties in full. This could include making a recommendation to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to the ERO to require them to make improvements to their performance in the discharge of their functions. Discussions are already under way between Commission and Cabinet Office officials to confirm the process to be followed in any such situations, ensuring that action can be taken quickly in the event of any issues emerging.
Copies of the Commission’s report have been placed in the library and it is also available on the Commission’s website: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council will be on 16 and 17 June in Luxembourg. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will represent the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP and Alun Davies AM will also attend.
There are both fisheries and agriculture items on this month’s agenda.
On agriculture the Commission may present its progress reports on proposals for a regulation combining and reinforcing existing school fruit and milk schemes, and a regulation fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products. Draft Council conclusions on the Commission’s reports on the implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform and an optional quality term “product of island farming” will be adopted. The Commission will present its report on the development of the market situation in the milk and milk products sector. A Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on agreements between the European Union and third countries on trade in organic products may be adopted. There will also be an exchange of views on the implementation of CAP reform at national level.
The Minister will join informal talks with US Secretary of Agriculture Mr Tom Vilsack during a working lunch hosted by the presidency and Commission.
On fisheries there will be a state of play item to endorse a draft omnibus (landing obligation) regulation. The presidency is expected to present a state of play paper on the implementation of the common fisheries policy discard plans in all regions followed by an exchange of views. Denmark has requested a discussion on setting the capelin total allowable catch (TAC) for 2014.
There are currently four any other business items:
Animal and plant health control package
Plant reproductive material
Country of origin labelling for meat
Conference in Athens “Scientific support to agriculture: Competitiveness, quality and sustainability”
South Sudan
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)
I wish to update the House on the situation in South Sudan and UK efforts to help resolve the conflict.
We remain deeply concerned about the security situation and growing humanitarian crisis in South Sudan. The agreement reached by the parties on 9 May seeks to end months of fighting, in which atrocities have been committed by both sides. Although the fighting on the ground has diminished, the ceasefire remains fragile. Regional leaders, led by Prime Minister Hailemariam of Ethiopia, have made clear that they will not stand by while South Sudan descends further into conflict. We continue fully to support regional efforts to broker inclusive and substantive peace talks leading towards a lasting political settlement.
The already fragile humanitarian situation in South Sudan has become desperate. Since the conflict started, thousands of innocent civilians have died and 1.3 million have fled their homes, of whom 80,000 have sought shelter in UN bases and 300,000 have sought refuge in neighbouring countries. Millions more face the serious threat of famine. Humanitarian access continues to be restricted by both sides. Enabling humanitarian access and assistance is an immediate priority for the UK. When I visited South Sudan in April and met the South Sudanese vice-president, I made clear that South Sudan was on the brink of disaster.
This Government are also concerned about reports of serious human rights violations and abuses in South Sudan. On 8 May, the UN mission in South Sudan issued a human rights report that makes clear the scale of human rights atrocities committed since the conflict began. It concludes that civilians were directly targeted by forces on both sides, often along ethnic lines. South Sudan’s own National Human Rights Commission has come to broadly similar judgements. Justice is essential for sustainable peace and national reconciliation in South Sudan. It is therefore vital that all allegations are subjected to thorough, impartial investigation and that perpetrators are brought to justice. The UK looks forward to the outcome of investigations of the African Union’s commission of inquiry on South Sudan.
The Foreign Secretary and I, working with our international counterparts since the conflict started, have urged President Kiir and former Vice-President Machar to show leadership by ending the fighting and committing to an inclusive political process. We have increased our diplomatic and political engagement with regional leaders to encourage international unanimity and pressure on both sides to resolve the crisis through dialogue. UK officials work closely with regional mediators and others to maintain pressure on the parties and ensure that the international community speaks with one voice. We are considering all levers at our disposal, including the possibility of targeted sanctions, which we are currently discussing with EU partners.
In addition to diplomatic and political support, the UK continues to provide financial assistance and expertise to the regional mediation efforts led by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). UK expertise supports both the political process and arrangements for monitoring and verifying ceasefire violations. The swift deployment of the protection force for the IGAD monitoring and verification mechanism as part of the UN mission in South Sudan will help build confidence and ensure that the fragile ceasefire holds.
In the UN Security Council, the UK worked to achieve a more focused mandate for the UN mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), adopted on 27 May 2014 as UN security council resolution 2155 (2014). The new mandate will allow UNMISS to respond more effectively to the current situation in South Sudan, focusing on better protection of civilians, enabling the provision of humanitarian assistance, monitoring the human rights situation and crucially providing protection and other support to regional efforts to maintain a ceasefire.
At the UN Human Rights Council this month we are aiming, with African support, for a strong resolution that properly reflects the seriousness of recent events in South Sudan. The gravity of the situation in South Sudan will also be highlighted at this week’s global summit to end sexual violence in conflict that the Foreign Secretary is co-hosting with Angelina Jolie, special envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
The UK is one of the leading donors to the humanitarian effort in South Sudan, contributing around £93.5 million since the conflict started, including £13 million for regional support to refugees. UK humanitarian assistance helps support food security and provides an emergency lifeline of tents, health care and other vital supplies to millions. At the Oslo humanitarian pledging conference on 20 May, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development announced new UK funding of £60 million for the humanitarian effort in South Sudan.
House of Lords
Queen’s Speech
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, as we debate the gracious Speech, I have just returned from the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, hosted by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and attended by more than 148 countries, as part of our ongoing efforts to end the use of rape as a weapon of war.
Sexual violence destroys the lives of men and women, boys and girls. Its effects last long beyond the original act, and the culture of impunity that exists for such crimes is a major barrier to international peace and security. It is right, therefore, that we have put tackling these abhorrent crimes at the heart of not only our social and developmental policies but our foreign policy. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend for his dedication in bringing this issue to the fore and his success in turning the tide of global opinion so that we can make accountability for these crimes the norm. We can all be incredibly proud that this summit is being held here in London.
Preventing sexual violence is just one area where we believe that the UK has the moral obligation and the diplomatic power to act, to ensure that human rights—the values that are woven into Britain’s DNA—are, as we pledged upon taking office, indivisible from our foreign policy. Such rights are fundamental to the values we cherish: freedom, tolerance, respect and fair play.
That is why we utterly condemn the introduction of anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda, Nigeria, India and the Russian Federation. The safety of LGBT individuals in these countries, and anywhere where discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity exists, is of paramount concern. Our position remains that human rights are universal and should apply equally to all people, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To render consenting same-sex relationships illegal or to discriminate against individuals based on their sexuality is incompatible with international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
We continue to lobby for greater human rights protections in all areas but in our six global thematic priorities in particular: women’s rights; torture prevention; abolition of the death penalty; freedom of expression on the internet; business and human rights; and freedom of religion or belief.
In addition to the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, our commitment to protecting women and girls from violence and discrimination will see the UK co-host the 2014 Girl Summit with UNICEF, drawing international attention to the issues of female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage. In support of existing efforts, the Girl Summit will bring together Governments, civil society, international organisations, community leaders and the private sector from around the world to drive forward a global movement to end FGM and child, early and forced marriage everywhere.
Noble Lords will be aware that the last of the six global thematic human rights priorities—freedom of religion or belief—is a personal priority of mine. In a speech in Washington last year, I spoke of this as a global problem, requiring a global response from international institutions to grass-roots organisations. Progress is being made. UN Security Council Resolution 1618 lays the foundations for combating discrimination against people based on their religion but much more needs to be done.
I am sure that the continuing global trend towards official restrictions on religious practices will concern the whole House, as will the continued religious extremism in some parts of the world, which has been matched by a growing intolerance towards those who think differently. We have seen this in Nigeria with the slaughter, kidnap and human trafficking of innocent schoolchildren by Boko Haram. We have seen this in Sudan, where women have been sentenced to death simply for marrying across religious divides, and we have seen this in Burma, where religious and ethnic tensions continue to cause indiscriminate loss of life throughout the Rakhine province. In all its work, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fights to protect the fundamental rights of every individual to practise or change their religion, or to follow no religion at all. Without these values, we cannot guarantee our security, our prosperity or indeed our international influence.
We continue to seek to influence others through our soft power: through the British Council, the BBC World Service, which is now funded entirely independently of government, and the “Great” campaign. We also do this through our development budget and defence diplomacy.
Over the past year the Government have adopted a new and ambitious approach to international development, which takes a fundamentally smarter approach to aid by mobilising private investment to multiply the reach and value for money of taxpayers’ funding, to drive growth and jobs and ultimately to lift countries out of poverty. In addition to our national efforts, we continue to promote economic development, prosperity, good governance and the rule of law; and to seek solutions to global threats from climate change to terrorism through international institutions—in particular, the UN and the Commonwealth. Of course, with Scotland the host nation for this year’s Commonwealth Games, we have yet another opportunity to build on the phenomenal success of London 2012 and display the best of British culture, hospitality and business to the world. Some 6,500 athletes and officials from 71 countries will compete in 17 sports over 11 days, but the Commonwealth Games is not the only international event that the UK will host this summer.
NATO remains the cornerstone of our national security and has been so for more than 60 years. We have no stronger allies or closer friends than the other 27 NATO members, so we are delighted that the UK will host the 2014 NATO summit. It will be another important moment in the history of the alliance: an opportunity for leaders to recognise the contribution and sacrifices made by our service men and women, as the ISAF mission in Afghanistan draws to a close, and to consider other ways in which we can support Afghanistan in the years to come. However, the summit will also be about the future of our alliance. It is an alliance whose purpose has been questioned in the 25 years since the Berlin Wall fell but whose role has been given enhanced significance following Russia’s act of flagrant disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent neighbouring state in illegally annexing Crimea earlier this year.
The high turnout and decisive outcome of the recent presidential elections in Ukraine, despite inexcusable attempts by armed separatist gangs to use intimidation to deny citizens the right to vote, shows the Ukrainian people’s resolve to decide their own future without outside interference. Each vote cast was an individual act of courage. Ukrainians have sent a decisive signal of their support for reform and a new future for their country. We look forward to working with the new President on ambitious reforms that can meet the aspirations of the people of Ukraine.
Just as Russia’s actions have caused instability to the east of NATO’s borders, its support for the Syrian regime continues to cause devastation. The situation in Syria remains deeply troubling and the conflict has continued unabated. Although the Assad regime has made some gains in recent months, we do not believe that any side will be able to win this war militarily. The regime’s violence continues without mercy, with the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian areas causing hundreds of deaths and the displacement of many more people.
When noble Lords debated last year’s gracious Speech, fighting in Syria had claimed 80,000 lives. That figure has now doubled; 6.5 million people, almost half of them children, have been displaced and 10 million people are in dire need of basic humanitarian assistance. A political solution still remains distant. The elections held last Tuesday, in the midst of a civil war, were a grotesque parody of democracy. The outcome was predetermined and millions were denied a say. Our aim remains a more stable, secure and democratic Syria that can meet the needs and aspirations of all its people. While a political solution continues to be sought, we will continue to work to manage the humanitarian consequences of this conflict, limit the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom and ensure the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons. The UK has been at the forefront of the humanitarian response in Syria and the region. Our total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million, three times the size of our response to any other humanitarian crisis. The UK has allocated £76 million for cross-border operations to provide assistance to areas that the UN cannot reach, and we will step up those efforts.
This year more than any other we remember the catastrophic effects wrought by war upon our shores. One hundred years after the first shots were fired in the First World War, we remember and pay tribute to those who sacrificed their lives for our country. It was not, as many had hoped, the war to end all wars. Indeed, last week’s commemorations of the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings are still fresh in our minds. We may have lost the last of our Great War veterans but that does not mean that their cause—safeguarding democracy, freedom and security—was not just. Their struggle should be remembered and celebrated. We must continue to fight to protect these principles, for which so many gave their lives.
The reflections of history also give us cause to be grateful for both NATO and the European Union which have provided the basis for co-operation that has brought peace to much of Europe for three generations. We will continue to work with our allies to reform the EU to make it more open, competitive, flexible and democratically accountable, for the benefit of the UK and, indeed, the whole of Europe.
I am aware that a significant number of noble Lords wish to contribute to today’s debate, so I will keep my remarks short, if I may, by referring quickly to part of the FCO’s work that is essential, at times difficult and, apart from in times of serious crisis, often goes overlooked. I speak of our consular responsibilities. Tomorrow will see the first match of the 2014 World Cup. As many as 22,000 England fans are expected to make the trip to Brazil and, as always when Britons are abroad, FCO consular staff will be on hand should they, or any of the Britons who will make 60 million overseas trips this year, need assistance. In 2013, the Foreign Office dealt with more than 900,000 queries and provided 17,000 acts of consular assistance to members of the public, helping British nationals cope with problems such as natural disasters, bereavement, family break-up and many other issues. We already run one of the best consular services of any nation in the world and we are making it even stronger. I pay tribute to all the staff involved for their outstanding dedication and commitment.
These are just some of the areas on which the Government continue to work to promote Britain and her interests overseas, to keep our country and our citizens safe and make them safer, and to ensure that Britain remains a force for good in the world.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, the Queen’s Speech was notable not simply because there was so little in it; it was notable because of the fact that the whole political debate currently is conducted under the shadow of two significant matters that could change fundamentally and for ever the shape and size of the country and the manner in which it is governed. If the SNP had its way, this would be the final Queen’s Speech prior to the beginning of the end of Britain as we know it.
I firmly hope that my fellow Celts will vote to stay with us in September. Together, we are undoubtedly more able to defend our common interests. As Gordon Brown set out eloquently this week,
“we forget the uniquely progressive set of decisions agreed by Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the 20th century to pool and share all our risks and resources so that whatever your nationality, you have equal social and economic rights of citizenship in the UK”.
Scottish people should be able to take comfort from the fact that citizens will be protected when they are old, sick or unemployed—a progressive pact that is underpinned by the nature of the solidarity settlement which benefits all parts of the country. As Gordon Brown said:
“Economies are becoming more integrated, public recognition of the interdependence of nations is increasing, the power of people—through social networks and non-governmental institutions—is challenging the old nationalist fixation with the trappings of state power”.
If that rings true for Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK, it follows that the same should be true for the UK’s relationship with the EU. If UKIP had its way—and many elements within the Tory party—this could be the final term for a Government prior to a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU and the potential devastating impact that withdrawal would have on the country.
It was interesting to note that the noble Lord, Lord Hill, in his recent written response to my noble friend Lady Royall, did not rule out the possibility of the Conservative Party reintroducing a Bill on the referendum during this Session. If that is the case, I hope that we shall not see any of the shenanigans that we saw during the previous Bill on the EU referendum, with confusion over whether it was a Private Member’s Bill or a government Bill. We saw manipulation of the timetable and a breaking of procedures and conventions developed over decades in this place. Can the Minister give us an assurance that this will not happen again?
The EU is central to the economy of this country, with more than 50% of our trade in goods dependent on easy access to 28 different markets. We need, however, to acknowledge that we have to bring the public along with us. The recent elections have demonstrated once again that there is an urgent need for more rapid reform of the EU—which must take into account the will of the people of Europe—and an understanding that the working class, in particular, feels aggrieved and disenfranchised. We need to remind everyone of the specific benefits that membership of the EU brings: tremendous strides forward in the cross-border fight against crime; protection for workers’ rights, including the right to paid holidays and equality in the workplace; consumer protection measures so that we can be more confident in the goods that we buy; and significant progressive environmental measures in a world where pollution does not respect boundaries and where the impact of excessive carbon emissions is all too prevalent across the globe. We need to communicate in a language that people can understand, and move away from using oversophisticated cosmopolitan political language that alienates and is unintelligible to so many of the public.
The shadow Foreign Secretary set out in a letter to David Cameron recently what the Labour Party’s reform agenda in relation to the EU would look like, but we are still waiting to hear what the Government’s reform agenda is. Will the Minister inform us specifically of what the Government want to see in terms of EU reform? We have been waiting for details for more than a year.
Tomorrow, we will see the kick-off of the football World Cup. I am not usually a great football fan, but I am delighted to say that I have picked Brazil in the office sweepstake. The thing that I love about the World Cup is the national anthems. I am delighted to see that Roy Hodgson has asked the England team to belt out the tune prior to the game, although I hope their grasp of the words is better than that of John Redwood, whose unforgettable attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem when he was Secretary of State for Wales has had more than 100,000 hits on YouTube. If Wales had qualified, I am sure that our lads would have had a go in four-part harmony. We would definitely have won the anthem competition, if not the World Cup.
Unlike in decades past, we will be able to watch the games in real time or repeated later on any number of flat screens, tablets, or even mobile phones. An army of English supporters, as we have heard, has arrived in Brazil as flight prices are not what they used to be, and we can Skype for free those lucky enough to be in Brazil using technology which spans the globe. The point is that the world is changing and becoming smaller and more integrated. The UK cannot isolate itself as a little island. We cannot return to a time when we were content to import the odd casket of wine from the continent.
The cry of national sovereignty is not about simply being able to say no. National sovereignty is no longer absolute. Sovereignty must be pooled for national advantage, whether in Scotland or in the EU. Isolation would make us masters, yes, but in a shrinking sphere of influence. It is only through the EU that the UK, with Scotland, can make its voice heard in the wider world, through joining our voices with those of 500 million others to gain a megaphone above the whisper that the UK would otherwise have in speaking to the 1.3 billion Chinese or 1.2 billion Indians.
The crisis on the EU’s borders in Ukraine demands a united EU response. We need stronger and tighter co-operation with our neighbours on this and other foreign policy areas. We need to create a genuine EU market in energy to protect against the vulnerability of a trade area that currently receives 30% of its gas from Russia. We need to insist on respect for international treaties and we need to be sure that Ukraine respects the minorities within its borders.
The tragedy in Syria continues to unfold. While sham elections take place, innocent civilians are left to fend for themselves without homes and without hope. We must continue to extend our hand of friendship to those who are affected and to support those countries in the surrounding areas which are bearing the brunt of the ensuing refugee crisis.
It is essential that we do not take our eye off the situation in Afghanistan and that we build on the work so ably carried out by my noble friend Lady Ashton in relation to building bridges with Iran. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what is currently happening in Iraq and what the Government’s response will be to the volatile and dangerous situation developing in recent hours.
I give the Opposition’s wholehearted support to the initiative taking place in London this week to prevent sexual violence in conflicts worldwide. Rape as a weapon of war can never be justified, and it is heartening to see that the Foreign Secretary has given such priority to this urgent task. I thank him also for the Girl Summit; that was interesting news.
The UK will be hosting the NATO summit in September, as the Minister mentioned. A commitment to common defence is what led us to intervene 100 years ago in the First World War. Last week, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings—a significant moment when the tide of fascism in Europe eventually started to turn. That sense of solidarity and the need for common defence systems should rest with us still, in particular at a time of heightened tension in Europe. Wales will be the location of the NATO summit, and that will be an opportunity to showcase the country and highlight opportunities for investment.
The Wales Bill will be coming to the Lords imminently. I hope that this will be a time when we can stop the war on Wales, in which we have seen aggressive attacks by various Conservative Ministers determined to talk down the country. I hope that we can also refrain from the temptation to introduce systems and policies that pit one nation against another within the British Isles. The danger of a race to the bottom in relation to taxation is real. It may achieve the hidden agenda that the current Government are so bent on achieving—the reduction in the size of the state—but that is not an ambition of this side of the House, which understands the importance and value of standing together, of pooling resources and of underlining the principle of shared community services.
Although the Queen’s Speech contains no legislation regarding Northern Ireland, it is clear that devolution must not mean disengagement. A recent poll in the Belfast Telegraph showed that 70% of young people wanted to leave Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy that so many see that as their future. With the Haass talks now reconvening there is a small window of opportunity for the Government to engage with Haass and with Northern Ireland’s political representatives to reach agreements on contentious issues.
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning the issues that were not covered in the Queen’s Speech. There was no reference to human rights or to religious persecution, in particular of Christians, and no mention of Sri Lanka. Can the Minister say whether President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka still plans to attend the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow? It is our strong view that his presence would not only undermine the values of human rights and tolerance that underpin the Commonwealth but would bring controversy and disruption to the Games.
Can the Minister also clarify what the Government’s position is in relation to the Presidency of the UN General Assembly possibly being undertaken by the homophobic Ugandan Foreign Minister? Does this not underline once more why we need to see reform of the UN and an updating of the institution?
The coalition Government are running out of steam. The sooner we have a Labour Government who understand the new and modern world—an integrated world where isolation within the UK or in Europe is not a sensible option—and who understand the real concerns of the public and the challenges of the cost of living crisis, the better it will be for the entire United Kingdom.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for setting out in very succinct terms the overview of where we are on foreign and defence policy today. However, I point out to her—I know that this view will be echoed around the House—that it was perhaps a bit of a mistake for the usual channels to schedule foreign affairs, defence and international development alongside the significant issue of constitutional affairs, over which, for the first time in 300 years in this country, we have a real dilemma. As it was known that some 80 or so speakers had put their name down, it would have been far better to have set aside separate days for these important matters.
I will stick to foreign affairs, as I would be expected to. My time is brief, so I will stick to just two things. The Foreign Secretary addressed a conference on globalisation last week at Chatham House, where he remarked that the world was more unpredictable and unstable now than in the last decade of the previous century. He also noted, wryly, that his period in office at the FCO coincided with some of the most unstable events that have taken place. Both statements are of course correct, but I am delighted to add that there is no causal link.
I will talk about the capacity of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to undertake deep analysis and problem-solving that renders it—or should render it—equipped to undertake the level of strategic thinking that is required to deal with the level of instability that the Foreign Secretary spoke about. We know that the role of the Foreign Office has changed; it has had its own pivot, if one can describe it as such, towards being a more commercial and trade-focused arm of the UK Government. I also appreciate that the Government have made structural changes, such as the Foreign Service Academy and the language academy, but the positive effects of that will not be felt for some time. In the mean time, the capacity of our diplomatic service to see long-term trends and to identify policy responses does not seem as robust as might be needed for these difficult times.
One example of the lack of capacity is still the dearth of senior women in leadership roles in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In the lead-up to International Women’s Day in March this year, I asked several parliamentary Questions about the role of women appointees at the United Nations, the European Union, other international agencies, NATO, other permanent members of the UN Security Council, our allies, BRICs, and so on. The response I got was truly extraordinary, and bears repeating. Some 11 women had served in senior roles in the past 25 years—I was only able to go back 25 years—while 173 men had served in those roles.
At a time when women’s equality has been pursued by both the Labour Government and indeed by this Government, I was interested to read in the rebuttal to my letter in the Financial Times that Sir Simon Fraser, the Permanent Under-Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is a Civil Service diversity champion. We shall not hold our breath, although I fully respect the fabulous role that Sir Simon carries out as head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Diversity matters because problem solving is complex and requires considerable thinking outside the box—which is impossible where one gender or class dominates. I am not trying to say that excellence should be sacrificed to obtain diversity. Indeed, one other sector of excellence in the United Kingdom, the university and higher education sector, has embraced diversity to its credit. Diversity is one of the reasons it ranks so highly among higher education institutions in the world.
Let me turn to my other concern in terms of a lack of strategic thinking in the Foreign Office. That is thinking around dealing with failing and failed states—or indeed states that are too big to fail but that may have to be allowed to fail. The noble Baroness talked about Iraq and Syria, and we know that there are several failing states in Africa. I will concentrate on one in which I know the noble Baroness takes an interest, which is Pakistan. Pakistan suffered an egregious terrorist attack on its principal airport in its principal commercial city earlier this week. It is mired overall in an ongoing decade-long deep and existential crisis.
I discussed the problem of a UK strategy for Pakistan in 2008 with the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The problem as I saw it was that the regional instability that an unstable and conflict-prone Pakistan would bring about was more profound and far-reaching than the issue of winding down the Af-Pak mission as it became to be known in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in those days.
The very concept of Af-Pak as a single prism was flawed in my estimation. The nature and dispersal of power in Pakistan, which had had authoritarian rule over many decades, was very different from Afghanistan and needed disaggregation from the Afghan war nexus. I was sent off by the Prime Minister to meet the senior Pakistan people in the FCO and it became apparent to me that the advice they were getting was shallow and short-sighted. What we have ended up with, as we have seen with the attack this week, is a Pakistan—which is a nuclear-weapon state of some 170 million people—in which the writ of the Government does not run in large sections of the country. The Governments of the day, each as incompetent as the previous one, do not have a strategy of dealing with the Taliban and are caught in this dilemma of trying to make peace with the terrorists they themselves inculcated and tried to bring about.
In our Foreign Office today we conflate the role of the diaspora—the Pakistani ethnic minority diaspora in Pakistan—with the dilemma that we have as a United Nations Security Council member dealing with Pakistan as a foreign country. So in concluding, I will to come back to our role as a United Nations Security Council member and simply ask the noble Baroness one question. The role of United Nations Secretary-General is coming up for renewal and reappointment in 2016. Will the United Kingdom Government give its backing to a senior female potential Secretary-General should one come up on the horizon?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could just intervene and remind noble Lords that we do not have a fixed time; we have an advisory time of five minutes. We have 82 speakers and for the courtesy of those speaking later in the debate, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that when the clock hits five, they have had five minutes.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I will concentrate this afternoon on the future of the United Kingdom—the first order question whose significance trumps even the weightiest Bills announced in the gracious Speech.
Of what do nations consist? They possess a physical geography and a political geography. Languages, too, are powerful shapers, as are shared memories—yet nationhood is not just a tangible, practical matter, but a thing of the imagination as well.
Out of all the ingredients that bind, there comes an emotional geography. It is the quality and timbre of the emotional geography of the United Kingdom that exercises me most about 19 September and after—if, as I fervently hope, Scotland has voted to stay together with the rest of us. We may well—I am sure we will—breathe a huge sigh of relief on the evening of 19 September, if such is the outcome, but the “us” question will remain live and testing in the aftermath. My greatest fear is that our islands will experience a creeping estrangement on the part of Scotland, which the further devolution of substantial powers, as proposed by all three mainstream parties, will do little to assuage and may even encourage.
What we will need from Friday 19 September, literally, is a sustained effort devoted to nation rebuilding—and by “nation” I mean the United Kingdom. We must apply every ounce of ingenuity to find ways in which to work together even more effectively as a union to pursue a new unionism, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, put it with great eloquence during our debate on 30 January—a sentiment echoed powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his introduction to the recent report from the Conservative Party’s Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, has long urged a constitutional convention to examine our wider constitutional arrangements—a view I firmly support. I welcome warmly the new All-party Group on Reform, Decentralisation and Devolution, created by the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Purvis of Tweed, of which I am a member.
In the event of a decision to stay together, there will be a chance for those of us who cherish the union and love Scotland but are without a vote there to join in fully the national conversation about the future of our islands and the development and refinement of our constitutional arrangements for the purposes of ever better union. I would like to think that your Lordships’ House could have a substantial input into such a conversation. We have, if I can put it tactfully, been around the block a bit, given our average age. We bring together in this Chamber all the constituent nations of the union and a deep reserve of accumulated experience of all parts of the UK, with great swathes of the rest of the world. I am confident that our fine Constitution Committee will be in the vanguard, but it might be useful if we thought, too, in terms of creating a special ad hoc Select Committee on refreshing the union.
Much will depend on the tone and pitch of reactions to a vote to stay together in these crucial days to come in September. There should be no trace of crude triumphalism and great respect shown to those who voted for independence. The yes vote, of course, would settle the Scottish question for ever; a no vote will not, even if the margin is substantial on 18 September. The Cabinet has forbidden Whitehall to draw up any contingency plans for the aftermath of a vote to separate. I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for whom I have a mighty respect, to urge his colleagues on the Cabinet’s Scotland committee to prepare for the months and years after a no vote a rebuilding and refreshing of a still United Kingdom with a special sense of that crucial emotional geography.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in this poorly arranged debate, there is time to speak only in shorthand, so I begin simply by observing that it is a great pity that there was not a single mention of the Commonwealth in the gracious Speech. Not only is it a matter of supreme interest to Her Majesty but the Commonwealth network and our membership of it is a major asset for the power and influence of Britain in this very turbulent world. It is incomprehensible to me why it was missed out.
Secondly, on Ukraine and Crimea, I am glad that some of the hyperbole has begun to go out of the argument. There has been quite an excessive reaction to the difficulties of that whole situation. I believe that it has been the right approach to squeeze Mr Putin in various ways, by various sanctions. However, like Her Majesty’s Government, I have some faith in Mr Poroshenko and his ability to deal with Mr Putin and see the matter held in hand.
Thirdly, I make a brief reference to the grim news from Mosul this morning, which should alarm us all. It confirms finally that there was never an Arab spring; there was an Arab turmoil, which is now developing in even worse ways in many areas. Entirely new approaches are clearly needed, different from the original analysis of what was supposed to be happening in the Arab world and the Middle East.
I shall now confine my remarks to my main subject, European Union reform, on which everyone now seems to be agreed. It has become the all-party mantra, although there is of course little agreement on exactly what it means. The strategic task was stipulated in the Prime Minister’s celebrated Bloomberg speech of 23 January 2013, but there is widespread concern that the follow-up has been weak—even to the point of leaving a vacuum in the whole undertaking—and we all know how a vacuum in policy and debate tends to fill up with extremist and polarised viewpoints.
The reality is that a mere shopping list of UK demands for “concessions” and derogations from the EU treaties—or mere bilateral UK-Commission negotiations of the kind for which some of the more naive Members of the other place have been calling—cannot hope to meet the need for EU reform, or British strategic repositioning, on the scale or at the depth required. For that to go forward, a far more profound and comprehensive approach is required, challenging parts of the outdated, 20th-century philosophy of the old EU at their roots, and mobilising a powerful and sympathetic alliance across the whole EU—an alliance that certainly exists and is there to be aroused and led in sensible directions.
This is a task the formulation and foundations of which go well beyond the scope of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, indeed, beyond the capacities of the Government as a whole. One has to remember, as many people do not, that the original ideas for European Community integration were conceived and devised almost deliberately outside Governments and often through private channels and meetings. Just as at that time the best brains were recruited from many sources and disciplines to meet the perceived geopolitical challenges of that era—more than 50 years ago—so the best brains and think-tank resources must be applied to shaping Europe in the utterly transformed world conditions that now prevail. This is obviously not a task suitable for Mr Juncker and his colleagues.
The essence of the new situation is that patterns of trade and international economic intercourse have completely changed their nature in this age of hyperconnectivity, meaning that old ideas about trade blocs, such as the concept of the EU single market, have been drained of their potency. Entirely new trade supply chains and global value chains have sprung up, almost like new rivers. Distinctions between manufactured goods, knowledge goods and services have become blurred. Tariffs have diminished and new protectionist devices have been deployed, particularly affecting services and knowledge industries. New patterns of economic and therefore political power have emerged, of which Europe is only a small part and in which the vaunted clout of the European Union, either as a trade bloc or as a political force, has a greatly reduced impact.
The starting point in change must be the excising of the centralising and integrationist mentality from the whole European project. This outlook—the wrong kind of federalism—belongs to a previous hierarchical age before the onset of the information revolution and the consequent empowerment of peoples. It is now rejected not just by politicians but by physicists, scientists, biologists, engineers, psychologists and others. Self-assembly, self-regulation and flexibility all now work organically; rigid and centralised command structures and top-down hierarchies—whether social, political or physical—do not. That is the new reality of our era.
For detail, I have no time, but in my files—and I suspect in the files of many others who have been involved with the Community since the UK first signed the treaty of Rome in 1972, and even before—there is copious documentation on these and other areas on which we have been working for well over 30 years, although to little effect, I am afraid. I must acknowledge, however, that the scene has totally changed, thanks to the microchip and the intensely connected digital world. Rethinking and new analysis must now be undertaken ab initio, within a clearly enunciated strategic reform framework for all Europe. That is an immense but essential task for our best minds in all parties and none, and for our best intellectual networks to undertake—although it is perilously late in the day.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, we are now in the final stages of the referendum campaign in Scotland. For the most part it has been a robust and civilised debate. However, there has been one stain on our debates. They have been marred by a campaign of personal abuse and insults carried out on social media, particularly by so-called cybernats associated with the Scottish National Party, against anyone who disagrees with them. I regret that very much. Last weekend I called on Mr Salmond to condemn and clearly dissociate himself from some of those accusations. It was an invitation to which he did not respond.
Perhaps we now know why: it was revealed this morning that Mr Salmond’s most senior adviser had been directly and centrally involved, in the past 24 hours, in a personal attack on a mother of a disabled child who was selected and appointed Carer of the Year in Scotland. That personal smear campaign was carried out because he does not like her views on the referendum. This morning, Mr Salmond ordered his adviser to apologise. That is not enough. If he truly abhors the nature of the vile campaign that has persisted over the past period on social media, he needs to go much further: that adviser should be sacked forthwith. Even then, the suspicion will now remain that the online campaign of personal abuse is not a spontaneous uprising of aggrieved supporters of separation. Rather, it is a centrally directed and orchestrated campaign that demeans the yes campaign and discredits the debate that is taking place in Scotland.
However, we are now finally weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of either course of action: the advantages of membership of the United Kingdom and the disadvantages of separation. I would have thought the advantages were pretty clear. We do not need to look in the crystal ball; we can read the book. Such is the denial of those advantages that it constantly reminds me of that famous “Monty Python” sketch, “What did the Romans ever do for us?”. What did the United Kingdom ever do for us in Scotland? It has given financial stability, from the disaster of the Darien scheme at the end of the 17th century to the disaster of the Royal Bank of Scotland at the beginning of the 21st century, with toxic debt greater than the GDP of Scotland.
The response to that is, “I’ll give you that, but what else did the United Kingdom ever do for us?”. It gave us economic strength. As the First Minister of Scotland keeps reminding us, we are among the wealthiest nations in the world after 300 years in the United Kingdom. England is to blame for that, is it? We have apparently prospered even better than England per capita, which is a peculiar way for England to exploit the Scots. Nevertheless, we have that economic strength. “Well, yes, I’ll give you that, but what else?” The United Kingdom has given us social justice, which the nationalists keep talking about. It has given us comprehensive education, the welfare state, national insurance, pensions, the minimum wage and the National Health Service. These were not gifts of nationalism but gifts of mainly Labour Governments, although also of Liberal and other Governments in Britain. “Well, yes, I’ll give you that, but what else?” The United Kingdom has given us individual opportunity, with scientists, administrators, leaders, sports men and women, and business men and women travelling the world. So we go on, but with a constant sense of denial from the First Minister.
However, if his denial of the advantages is great, his denial of the risks is even greater: the risks to do with currency, pensions, EU membership, taxation, immigration and defence and security. To deny that, he has to dismiss, disagree with or, in some cases, denigrate one or two people, such as the President of the United States, the President of the EU, the Scandinavian Foreign Ministers and the former Prime Minister of Sweden, Carl Bildt. The First Minister yesterday referred to him as a fool; he said he was “foolish”. There are many people in Europe who might disagree with Carl Bildt and might think he is wrong in some things. There are very few people, other than the First Minister, who think Carl Bildt is a fool.
Yet that process of denial continues. To sustain the claims that separation has great advantages and no risks, you have to dismiss one or two experts. The First Minister has told us that experts know very little about what they are speaking about: the Governor of the Bank of England knows nothing about Bank of England matters; the Secretary-General of NATO is not an authority on NATO; the President of the European Commission, of course, knows very little about the European Union; and the Institute for Fiscal Studies is dreadfully ignorant of fiscal studies. What does Standard & Poor’s, the leading ratings agency, know about ratings? And so it goes on. I have great respect for those who say, “Yes, there are risks but I want to be separate on principle and I will bear the risk”. However, I have no respect for those who say, “This is all reward and no risks”, because that is a massive act of self-denial and a massive act of deception towards the people of Scotland.
Therefore, as we approach the weighing up of the arguments on 18 September, I sincerely hope that, having examined the options, the people of Scotland will give a polite but firm “no thanks” to the nationalists. I think that that will happen and I think, and hope, that it will be a decisive answer, and then we can, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, get on with improving and changing our country for the better, without changing our passports.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, in the limited time available, I shall concentrate my remarks on some aspects of international development, starting with the Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation. It has helped countries and organisations to work together towards ending poverty since before the turn of the millennium. The legislative perspective began to be organised through the energetic participation of parliamentary delegations, demanding greater recognition for the key role of parliament and legislators in this debate.
There is a growing emphasis on accrual of natural resource revenues, foreign direct investment, taxation, philanthropy and other domestic resources, and thus the pool of resources to be accounted for has deepened and widened. Partner governments and parliaments are now responsible for managing and accounting for the growth of local domestic resources, as well as for external finance such as ODA.
The new focus on the private sector makes sense. Developing countries need jobs and wealth creation. Strong institutions are vital. In the developing world, parliamentary institutions are not only the political underdogs in an executive-dominated landscape; they are chronically ill informed, barely engaged and sorely under-resourced. In fact, capacity is often minimal. Parliaments, the only institutions to hold the mandate of the people and thus at the apex of every country’s accountability structure, do not have the resources to carry out their roles effectively. In fact, the chief constraint to effective development is often the weak capacity for oversight in parliament.
Donors should not, however, shy away from supporting legislatures and instead invest in CSOs as their “development watchdogs”. They should not seek comfort through the idea of stronger NGOs; instead, they should look at building stronger parliaments. Continuing to bypass parliaments because they are weak just further weakens them rather than developing their capacity.
After I delivered the report from the parliamentary forum at the fourth high-level forum in Busan in 2011, parliamentary capacity was included as a key indicator of aid effectiveness in the final statement. However, by the time we reached Mexico City this April, after 18 months of meetings of the committee for Global Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation—a committee of which our own Secretary of State for DfID was the co-chair—the role of parliaments had all but disappeared. What we did have, however, was the glossy launch of Unleashing the Power of Business, which is a practical road map for systematically engaging business as a partner in development. It professes to be a road map all about partnerships. Set out on the cover are partnerships between donors, between business, between civil society and between recipient governments. Is anything missing? Parliament— the one organisation with the electoral mandate of the people to hold each of the others to account and to demand transparency is parliament. Over eight pages of glossy diagrams, action areas, sectoral roles and examples of public-private sector partnerships, there is not a single mention of parliament—not one.
To be clear, there is a great deal of support for the Government’s initiative for boosting the role of business in aid and development programmes, including from NGOs delivering major programmes, and from the European Commission, which is not exactly renowned as a haven of capitalism, but it comes with a health warning of risking putting profits before the needs of the world’s poorest people. Surely, the major criticisms by the Government’s aid watchdog, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, of the £1.8 billion economic development programme have to be a major wake-up call. That includes, for example, the need to define and articulate where the programme can add most value and to be more realistic in its ambitions and impact; the need for clear guidance to staff on how to design well-balanced country portfolios that match the goals for an end to extreme poverty; the need better to calibrate and manage the risks associated with private sector development; and the need to work harder to understand the barriers and business imperatives faced by the private sector engaged in development. No wonder the ICAI gave DfID a red-amber health warning. If these were the comments from the auditors on the company accounts presented to an AGM, I suspect that the rather banal response to the ICAI from DfID would be swept aside, with the company’s share price dropping like a stone as unconvinced shareholders fled in droves. However, in this case, it is not shareholders that the Government have to worry about; it is the voters.
Given that private sector development is a top priority for DfID, the ICAI report should be seen as an urgent call for DfID to put its work on hold and start open discussions with a much wider array of CSOs, businesses and parliamentary representatives in the UK and overseas. In this area, as was demonstrated in Mexico, DfID is a world leader and the private sector has DfID to thank for the larger space that it now has in development co-operation. That is welcome in many ways but the welcome will soon fade if, in the process, DfID begins to abandon the aid effectiveness agenda. The private sector must have a role and supporting economic development is crucial, recognising that our 0.7% GNI aid allocation is a precious resource that must be focused on aid effectiveness.
In conclusion, the new approach in the fight against poverty is as yet insufficiently evidence-based. Not all growth delivers on poverty reduction and broader economic opportunities. The ICAI report highlights how difficult it is to know how much money is being channelled into this tranche of work. Establishing proper impact assessments without the benefit of clear transparency procedures is daunting and weakening corporate accountability, with some aid not directly targeted at the poor. The private sector is just one ingredient of many in the mix of inclusive economic growth. Taxation, education, health and a sound institutional and parliamentary framework all play crucial roles. While we know the ingredients, far less is known on how best to combine them. Setting them in the guidelines set up by the aid effectiveness agenda could be a good way to start.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the silver lining in last month’s otherwise pretty disastrous European Parliament election results may have been well concealed at the time but there is a real opportunity, none the less, as was shown by the leaders of the European Council at their dinner on 27 May, to shift the debate on to a new positive reform agenda and away from the obstructive and disruptive prescriptions of the populist parties whose support has increased so sharply. Will that opportunity be taken, or will it be frittered away among demands for repatriation and renegotiation for more red lines and more British exceptionalism? Will Britain give a lead in shaping a new reform agenda whose aim would be to benefit all member states? That, surely, is the challenge that faces the coalition Government, and indeed all three main parties, as they prepare for next year’s general election. That was what they should have done but, with one exception, did not do in the campaign that preceded the European Parliament elections.
Here are some suggestions for what might be included in such a positive reform agenda. First, an important component will necessarily be policies to encourage sustainable economic growth, particularly in the countries of the eurozone where it is lagging most, and thus to get to grips with the blight of youth unemployment. The lead obviously will be taken by the eurozone member states and the European Central Bank, but we should be in no doubt that it is in our interest that they succeed and we should give them full support and encouragement. Moreover, we stand to gain considerably from the implementation of the structural reform programmes which are a necessary part of that process.
Secondly, the completion of the single market in services and in energy needs to be given a shot in the arm, and a level playing field for the expansion of the digital service industry needs to be created. So far, there has been an awful lot of talk about the digital issues and precious little action. Would it not make sense for the new Commission to publish a White Paper of the same sort that Lord Cockfield, former Member of this House, produced in 1985 on the single market setting out precisely what needed to be done to achieve that level playing field? The European Council could then endorse and implement it.
Thirdly, it is surely essential to make a living reality of the treaty principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in EU law-making and strengthen the role of national parliaments in that process. Your Lordships’ Select Committee gave the Government, some two months ago, a broad menu of measures that would, without treaty change or undue delay, make substantial progress towards those objectives. When will the Government respond to those ideas? What action will they take to implement them? It is within the framework of a positive reform agenda of that sort that we can most effectively also address some of the principal irritants in our relationship with the EU—issues such as the working time directive and the whole range of matters bound up with welfare benefits for migrant workers. We can hope to find solutions to those in the overall context and interest of the EU, not just of one member state.
That domestic reform agenda needs an external component, too. Here, too, I offer three suggestions. First, the eastern challenge represented by the seizure of Crimea and the destabilisation of Ukraine is one we cannot afford to duck. I very much welcome the robust way the Government have handled that so far. Russia’s actions have risked driving a coach and horses through the whole post-Cold War settlement of Europe. We need to help Ukraine consolidate a thoroughly reformed political and economic structure. We need to deter Russia from further meddling in that process by showing credibly how costly that would be for it. We need to diversify our energy security and reduce our collective dependence on Russian gas supplies to a level that would mean we could sustain any politically motivated interruption longer than it could.
Secondly, we should recognise that we have a fight on our hands if we are to realise the major benefits that would accrue from a successful completion of the transatlantic trade and investment negotiations and from freer trade with Japan and India—whose new Government surely offer a real opportunity to revive the negotiations that have so far been languishing. The recent European elections strengthened protectionist pressures, as has the backing and filling in the US Congress. There is a need for a major advocacy campaign in favour of these trade initiatives, as has been proposed by your Lordships’ EU Committee in its recent report.
Thirdly, we must not turn our backs on further enlargement. Progress with Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and Macedonia is a crucial element in stabilising that fragile region and consolidating the gains of recent years.
These EU priorities are pressing. There is not a great deal of dispute about them. What I said bears a striking resemblance to what came out of the meeting in Sweden last night. What is lacking so far is a real will to move forward on that agenda. I hope the Government will do that when the European Council meets later this month. I hope that we can lift up our eyes from an obsession with issues of personalities, which undermines our ability to push this agenda forward.
Lord Lyell (Con)
My Lords, 41 years ago, as a fairly fresh-faced Member of your Lordships’ House, I took part in one of the first visits that the House of Lords defence group made to RAF Leuchars and RAF Kinloss. I am very lucky to be secretary of this group, which has continued right through. Above all, it came into being as a study group and, my gosh, we are able to reflect.
I hope I can take two minutes of your Lordships’ time to say that we are unbelievably well served by quite one of the best Ministers for Defence that we have had in your Lordships’ House in all my time here, my noble friend Lord Astor. He gathers us humble Back-Benchers, together with noble and gallant Lords, at least once a month and gives a full briefing on everything to do with the Ministry of Defence—the facts, the figures, the equipment, the tactics, the men and women and the problems. He gives us a fantastic background and I am particularly grateful to him for that.
Many of your Lordships may be startled given the length of my hair and, I hope, my bearing, but for two years I was a soldier. I can see many more around the House, including my noble friends Lord Selsdon and Lord Howell of Guildford, who was a distinguished member of the Coldstream Guards for about that time. We are old enough—over 75. I spent two years as a young soldier and I have never forgotten what the Army did for me. We have opportunities to study and visit Army units, Army regiments and all kinds of other groups and members of the Armed Forces. I am amazed at how far things have continued and been able to go on.
I apologise to my noble and learned friend who will be winding up the debate but I am sure he will be able to gather together my thoughts and answer any questions through the usual channels and through the ministry. I would be grateful if the Government could reassure me on the particularly ambitious programme of achieving 30,000 reservists in all branches of the Army and in everything it does. It is clearly an ambitious programme. There are some bright points but some press reports indicate that there are some difficulties. No doubt they will come out in the wash and at some stage over the next year we will be able to have a fuller debate on these matters.
I hope recruiting is carrying on as it should and that no one in the Army, or any other branch of the defence forces, has to wait for up to six months before they can start training. Such delays are mainly because of financial constraints but quite often because of other administrative reasons. I hope I will receive encouraging news on that.
I hope that training facilities, particularly for the Army but also for other branches of the defence forces, are available and being improved, and that value for money can also be improved. There are all kinds of ways in which improvements can be made.
As to the equipment, kit and weaponry that might be needed, I recall—the noble Lord, Lord West, may remember this—a happy day on the ranges at Bisley in 1990. We both had an opportunity to speak to the sharpshooters of the Royal Marines who had serious problems with the SA80 rifle. It was certainly causing trouble then, although it may have been put together and be doing well now. Your Lordships may hear later from the noble Lord and me about what happened and how the Royal Navy brought the entire proceedings at Bisley to a halt that day. He may be able to explain that at a later date and in due course.
The families of all members of the defence forces are of particular importance. I hope that my noble and learned friend will reassure me that the return of forces from Germany is proceeding smoothly, that accommodation is available and that problems are being ironed out.
Next month will be a special month for the Royal Navy and for Scotland. I was encouraged by the fiery speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who is absolutely right. I have a message for the First Minister, who thumped his chest last week and said, “We can”. I, a humble Scot, will tell him that we, the people of Rosyth, delivered on time and that we will see what is happening with that wonderful new carrier in about a fortnight’s time. It was a team effort.
I see my noble friend is getting excited. I was told that I had short sight but I have my glasses on. I will not refer to her in like terms as I do at the football—“Get new glasses”—but I hope the noble and learned Lord will take on board that we are very proud of what is happening at Rosyth.
Finally, I wish every man and woman in the Armed Forces the best. They are the best. We salute them and their families today and for good.
Lord Prescott (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address my remarks to one line in the Queen’s Speech, which states:
“My Ministers will also champion efforts to secure a global agreement on climate change”.
That statement is further defined in an advice note on the Bill, which refers to achieving,
“an international, legally binding, rules based agreement”.
I want to talk about that because it is an almost impossible task. I was actively involved in the Kyoto negotiations in 1997, when we achieved the first global agreement on climate change. Since then I have been involved in the discussions and negotiations right up to today, through the collapse at Copenhagen and, indeed, to the coming, very necessary agreement to be made in Paris in 2015. Although it had its limitations, the first global agreement was largely successful, but now we need to make sure that agreement is achieved in Paris. If we do not reach an agreement in Paris, the whole climate change negotiation and this particular piece of legislation will fall.
We all recognise that the world of 2014 is of course very different economically, politically and socially from the world of 1997. However, the global climate change problem continues to grow because of increasing carbon output. As the IPCC has pointed out, we are beginning to see a serious deterioration of our climate, an increase in world temperatures and more extreme weather events, as it predicted. This is a global problem requiring a global solution and consensus.
A major step forward has been taken through the recent agreement between the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, who were not signatories to the Kyoto formula; namely, the United States and China. Unfortunately, that agreement has not received the kind of attention it should, but as President Obama has made clear, a legal agreement on carbon changes cannot be achieved at the international level because he cannot get such an agreement through Congress. He has chosen to use his presidential powers to ensure that US domestic legislation sets out a legal framework, rather than pursue an international one. Indeed, China is taking a similar course of action. This is a departure from the Kyoto framework, which set out an international legal framework for the industrialised countries. This new agreement has to apply not to 40 countries but to 190, which will of course be much more difficult to achieve. I believe that the framework can be brought together through the EU negotiation system. There is such a big difference in the negotiating positions of these large continents that it threatens a further Copenhagen-style collapse, as happened in 2009. The best approach would be for the European Union to negotiate with China and America to secure a new climate change agreement for Paris.
Unfortunately, climate change is not a priority for the present Government or, indeed, for the European Union, which, committed though it is to an international legal framework, knows that it cannot be applied for the reasons I have explained. The June and September 2014 meetings of the Council of Europe do not have climate change on the agenda. Energy is the priority issue for those meetings, particularly a review of the circumstances around Russia and its gas supplies. The council will be talking about that issue, and climate change is to be left until next January. Given the circumstances of these negotiations, if this issue is left until the end of next January, it will be far too late to have any influence on any agreement to be achieved in Paris. The EU could change its position on this.
There is an alternative, which I have advocated and seen passed by the Council of Europe. Last Sunday, I put it before 60 nations at the GLOBE International summit conference in Mexico, and it was accepted unanimously. What you need to do is get each country to accept climate change legislation of the kind we have in this country and put the globally agreed targets into that legislation. No Government can then come along and change them unless they bring in further legislation. That will give a legal framework, imposed by domestic legislation. That is an obviously good compromise that Europe could produce. But it is not the Government’s position or the European Union’s position. Britain could play a part in changing it but, frankly, this Government have lost their credibility in Europe to make any kind of change or give any priority to this.
We must begin to debate this issue. Climate change is the biggest threat to this planet and the sustainability of what we have. Legislators need to raise their heads. After all, in finding agreements they have nothing to lose but incompetent Governments. Legislators here, everywhere and in the 66 nations that were in Mexico are agreeing to do that. It is time to think radically about it. It is time to make change. Above all, it is time to make an agreement.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, it is very easy to dismiss a legislative programme as too light, as Members of both Houses have done recently, but I have sat through a good many debates on gracious Speeches in which the accusation has been precisely the opposite. For my part, I remain consistent in arguing that less can be more, as I said to your Lordships on 13 May. Indeed, there are 11 Bills. That is more than one a month over the present Session.
One such Bill will give effect to the Liberal Democrat and Conservative promise to introduce a power of recall for MPs who have committed “serious wrongdoing”. There has never been any intention or promise from any party to introduce a broader power to dismiss MPs whose views someone dislikes. This is not watered down. It is much more likely that what will be in the Bill will be exactly what has been promised by all three parties.
The vital balance to strike, as has been very well put by Michael White in the Guardian, is to retain the Burkean responsibility of an MP to promote unfashionable or unpopular causes while at the same time ensuring that those who break the rules can be evicted by the constituents whose trust they have broken. I understand that Mr Zac Goldsmith prefers the Californian model of recall, but we should note that that would have enabled constituents to petition, perhaps successfully, for the recall of all MPs who had voted for the invasion of Iraq. I was very strongly against the invasion but all those who took the opposite view—the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, might agree with me on this—should certainly not have been evicted on a minority petition because of the action they took as responsible Members of Parliament. Like so much of this territory, getting a recall power right is more complex than it sounds. As ever, this House will have a big role to play in getting the detail right.
Meanwhile, if your Lordships’ House really does feel short of work to do in this Session, I will propose a way in which we can make good use of the newly available time. We regularly lament the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny—something which has improved under this Government but is still not regular enough—but what about post-legislative scrutiny? I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who has campaigned on this issue. There are plenty of examples of recently enacted legislation that urgently needs review by Joint Committees.
For example, the Academies Act 2010: surely now in the light of recent events there are big questions to ask about how accountability works in academies and free schools. Secondly, the Localism Act 2011: many of us feel that this was potentially one of the biggest successes of this Government, with support right across the House, but it is still criticised as inadequate by the local government community. Thirdly, the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011: how well are those police and crime commissioners working with the communities that elected them, even if it was in very small numbers? We need to know.
Those are just a few examples. Others around the House will remember debates on other Bills where it would be beneficial to go back and look again at whose arguments were best supported by the practical effects of the legislation. On two big, controversial Bills—the Health and Social Care Act and the transparency Act—this House has inserted review clauses. Perhaps now is the time to consider whether all Bills should have a review clause, or even a cessation clause, just as all Bills have a commencement clause.
Parliament is not just about legislating. It is about scrutiny, and in this House we take particular pride in the quality of our scrutiny. We have plenty of legislation for the coming months but we could also find plenty more recent legislation to scrutinise for its adequacy or inadequacy, to make sure that it works and is fit for purpose. There is a real opportunity in this Session to do some extremely important work to check the quality of the work we have done previously in this Parliament and I hope that your Lordships’ House will address that issue.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, last night, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I hosted a meeting that focused on sexual violence in south-central Somalia. The meeting was attended by the Somalian Foreign Minister, Members of the federal Parliament and representatives from the largest Somali women’s group, IIDA. After much robust discussion, a British citizen of Somali extraction stood up and said, “I did not intend to speak this evening but there is something I have not yet heard and it must be said. I stand to say thank you to the Government of the United Kingdom for supporting Somalia and thank you to the British taxpayer. Thank you”. Our noisy debate came to a silent halt as all in the room contemplated the spectre of a Somalia without the essential support of international donors. I think it is fair to say that all present were proud and moved.
I declare an interest as a patron of Legal Action Worldwide, an NGO that provides innovative and legal systems to women and children in fragile and conflict-affected states, and it is with its expert advice that I speak today. Sexual violence in south-central Somalia is pervasive and committed with near total impunity. There were 1,700 reported cases in internally displaced persons camps in 2012 and 800 reported rapes in the capital in the first six months of 2013—and all sources agree that these official figures are likely to vastly underrepresent the actual numbers of women affected by sexual violence in the region. There is a social stigma associated with rape and survivors have a very legitimate fear of reprisals against not only themselves but their broader family.
As with sexual violence the world over, much of it is committed by men known to the women—but in Somalia, a great many rapes and acts of sexual violence are committed by armed men in uniform. Estimates from the UN and Somali bodies vary wildly from 30% to 70% but what is constant is that the perpetrators include the Somali police, the army and, in some cases, peacekeeping troops of the African Union mission in Somalia, AMISOM. This raises very difficult issues for donor nations such as the UK that support either directly or indirectly all three of these security bodies. As a major donor to the security forces and to Somalia more generally, we have a duty not only on paper but in practice to create a red line—a line that says our contribution is dependent on victims of sexual violence in Somalia having recourse to support and meaningful redress.
It has to be said that the UK provides leadership in this area. Last night, we heard from colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that four new AMISOM personnel will focus on the protection of women and children and that AMISOM has promised to implement the civilian casualty tracking cell—a mechanism by which to track and address allegations of abuse. The UK has also supported Somali-led action plans for ministries to address violence—and of course, in the humble Address, the United Kingdom promised to lead efforts to prevent sexual violence in conflict worldwide.
However, we must translate promises into action and action plans into implementation. The AMISOM tracking mechanism has been promised for more than three years without moving forward. Will the Minister now establish and agree a date for implementation and subsequent review? The new personnel, however welcome, must implement it with a guarantee that tracking will be accessible to women in the community as part of an effective and trusted mechanism by which civilians can make allegations of sexual violence.
Thirdly, the status of mission agreement should be revised to provide greater clarity on who takes the lead in the investigation of sexual offences so that we do not inadvertently finance a system where the perpetrators and investigators are from the same body.
Finally, can we make certain that action plans for Somalia allowing ministries to address sexual violence are properly funded, resourced, monitored and implemented on time? This includes, I believe, supporting the first sexual offences Bill in Somalia and adopting accountability policies for the Somali police force and the Somali national army. For the women of Somalia, questions of security are inextricably tied to questions of protection from sexual violence. A strong security sector is not weakened by proper structures of justice and accountability—on the contrary.
This week the Foreign Secretary hosts the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. It is a matter of considerable leadership. In last evening’s meeting there was anger and three were tears, but there was also hope. Will the Minister carry our congratulations and these recommendations back to the Foreign Secretary? It is imperative that the structures we put in place are equal to the undertakings that we make.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Scottish referendum means that we face constitutional change, or the possibility of it, on a massive scale. I recall someone remarking that constitutional change in Britain is a bit like unpicking a ball of wool—once it unravels, it is hard to stop without creating a knotty mess. That is neither an argument against constitutional change nor against knitting but it does call for a good pattern to follow.
While it may not rate as constitutional change, many of us on these Benches hope that at the General Synod next month we will finally approve the legislation to enable women to be consecrated as bishops. Unlike the break-up of the United Kingdom which needs only a simple majority vote in one nation, the Church of England requires majorities of two-thirds across the board—bishops, clergy and laity—to achieve such a change. Sixty years ago it would have been unthinkable, but when I was born your Lordships’ House contained only males and only hereditary Peers. Constitutional change, the creation of life Peers and the introduction of women to our Chamber has both reflected and shaped wider cultural change, and the reputation of your Lordships’ House has been enhanced.
Noble Lords will be aware that a diocesan bishop is often in post for four, five or even six years before being introduced here, so these Benches could continue to be all male for some years after the first women are consecrated. Some of us hope that, in consultation with the Government and the usual channels, a way may be found to break the cycle a little and create a faster track for the first female diocesan bishops. It needs sensitive handling. The first women bishops will undergo much media scrutiny and attention so we do not want to make the pressures on them unbearable, but we hope that this modest reform may be permissible without inviting every other good or bad idea about Lords reform to be attached to it. In the light of changes in the composition of your Lordships’ House, I hope that the quicker arrival of women bishops may be welcomed in the closing speeches today.
Culture is the Cinderella subject in today’s debate but I want to draw attention briefly to a remarkable cultural development—the renewal of our cathedrals where, I hope and pray, the first female diocesan bishops will be enthroned. It was their community value which led the Chancellor to allocate £20 million for outstanding cathedral repairs in the last Budget. Cathedral congregations have grown, some remarkably, but the contribution of cathedrals to economic regeneration and social cohesion is often underplayed. The 42 cathedrals of the Church of England—I can speak only for them—receive as many visitors in a year as all English Heritage’s 420 properties combined. That is not to do down English Heritage’s remarkable collection; it simply demonstrates the enormous attraction of cathedrals. One in six British adults will visit a cathedral this year, which is more than will attend football matches, even including those committed enough to travel to Brazil. Those 42 cathedrals employ around 6,000 people. Recent calculations on their economic impact suggest returns of at least £91 million per annum, rising to more than £150 million, including incidental spend.
Cathedrals create community. Cathedral quarters, such as the one in Blackburn, are being created to bring social regeneration to the city. In Chester, a partnership between the cathedral and the police has proved a good way of managing anti-social behaviour by creating a safe as well as beautiful space at the heart of the city. Next week in Norwich, I will host the annual Bishop’s Art Prize exhibition for students of the Norwich University of the Arts. They are given a theme capable of wide interpretation and discover that the church is still a significant sponsor of new art. Canterbury and Winchester have art by Antony Gormley, and St Paul’s has just installed the first permanent moving-image artwork within any cathedral: Bill Viola’s “Martyrs”. Our cathedrals are treasure houses of contemporary art.
Culture is also about people. Our cathedrals are now ablaze with candles lit by people who come to pray in need and distress. They could not operate without an army of volunteers. We have more than 600 in Norwich, and there are more than 800 in Canterbury. At Manchester Cathedral, a scheme of volunteering aimed at the long-term unemployed has had an incredible success rate in getting people back to work.
There may have been no proposed legislation specifically aimed at culture in the gracious Speech, except that all we do has a bearing on it. It is about the way we live our lives, and the walls separating faith and worship from art and economics or from social inclusion and heritage turn out to be very thin indeed and could do with being removed altogether.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, my contribution will be even shorter than I envisaged simply because my noble friend Lord Lyell has made many of the points that I was going to make, and I very strongly agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, when he spoke in your Lordships’ Chamber a few months ago, called for a debate on the Floor of the House about defence. I think it very important that we have that debate because the last of our troops will be withdrawing from Afghanistan, and we remember those who have fallen. It would be appropriate to try to learn some of the lessons of that conflict and what more we need to do to strengthen the numbers and equipment of our forces.
In the gracious Speech, there is one Bill which I strongly support: the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill. I hope the House will agree a speedy passage for it because it gives the opportunity for service men and women to raise concerns and complaints in a much more efficient and effective manner than at present. The Bill provides for the establishment of an ombudsman to deal with complaints that might not necessarily result in prosecution.
As far as the Reserve Forces are concerned, I hope we do not lose our nerve in backing the creation of a larger reserve force of 30,000 for the Army. When many years ago I shared responsibility with some of your Lordships for the Territorial Army, we were at more than 70,000. To go to 30,000 seems credible and realistic. When our regular soldiers come back from Germany, I hope that many of them will consider transferring their service from the regulars to the Reserve Forces. From my conversations with many of them, there is every hope that that will happen.
Finally, I pay tribute to those recently retired members of the Armed Forces whom I have taken on as a research assistant over the years. I think all of them have gone on with a greater understanding of your Lordships’ House and the process of legislation. If I can embarrass the latest member, Mr Zombanakis, who is listening to this debate, I wish him well at Harvard. All his predecessors have enjoyed their time working for me and understanding the role and function of the House of Lords.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, aside from some issues concerning Europe, I believe that everyone approaches foreign policy matters in this House in terms of the interests of the United Kingdom and our allies. Party advantage has been almost entirely irrelevant to our debates, and I want to follow that course today.
I want to express an anxiety that our country and this Parliament is at risk of becoming rather more inward-looking and somewhat more self-referential. It is plainly not simply the case that that is true: the current conference which the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, was describing to us, the work being done in sexual violence in law and the work which deals with the core commitments plainly address a much wider set. Yet it is far more common to wonder in a public way about whether we should focus at all on places in which it is erroneously believed that we have little interest or which do not directly threaten our security.
Of course, in this interconnected world, almost all places can be potentially difficult for us. However, this inward-looking trend—which is so plain, for example, in UKIP policy and much of what is said about Europe or NATO, or, indeed, what is being said in the context of the Scottish referendum, and in the discomfort with the potential burden of enforcing, for example, the United Nations rights of protection—is, in my view, a trend that we should resist.
I am making no appeal here to antique “great power” or imperial stances. I abhor war. I am not advocating intervention where goals are undefined, vague or beyond achievement. However, we have an historic and contemporary responsibility. We may no longer be a great power in the sense that that was understood, but we are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We have a veto. We are expected to act appropriately, or this standing seems certain to be challenged. This standing cannot be cast in our minds as a burden. It is, rather, a privilege that we enjoy in the world.
My apprehensions may, of course, be wrong. What surprises me is that, notwithstanding the depth and variety of knowledge in this House, we have no standing committee to analyse in depth the United Kingdom’s role in the world. There is work undertaken effectively on Europe in committees but, in a complex world, it cannot be grasped on the basis of the occasional debate that we have. Work, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, earlier, on FCO strategy which is plainly needed would be greatly advanced by having such a capacity.
As today’s debate also includes DCMS, I hope noble Lords will let me comment on the regulation of football in the United Kingdom, and the massive and growing evidence of corruption in FIFA and international football. I start by thanking so many Members of both Houses for their support over the past four years. I have learnt that whistleblowing is an extremely uncomfortable experience; I am not sure that I would advocate it to anybody. The efforts of parts of our media—“Panorama” and Andrew Jennings; the Sunday Times with its “Insight” tradition; and Channel 4’s “Dispatches” and Geoff Atkinson—have been exemplary. Those in the United Kingdom’s World Cup bid, with the very honourable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, whom I am delighted to see in his place, spent much of their time condemning the investigative media, while he applauded it. I congratulate him most sincerely on that.
I wonder if I may try, even briefly, to tell it like it is. FIFA, I am afraid, behaves like a mafia family. It has decades-long traditions of bribes, bungs and corruption. About half of its executive committee who voted on the previous World Cup have had to go. Even its previous president, João Havelange, has been removed from his honorary life presidency in his 90s.
Systematic corruption, underpinned by non-existent investigations where most of the accused are exempt from the investigation, makes it impossible to proceed. Foreign construction workers dying in their dozens in Qatar stadium construction sites are essentially ignored. I applaud Greg Dykes’s rebuttal of Sepp Blatter’s grotesque accusation that all those criticisms are simply racist. The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and other noble Lords in this House have demonstrated that concern with racism and concern with proper dealings and anti-corruption go hand in hand.
Don Corleone would have recognised the tactics and would probably have admired them. Domestically, the Burns report on football has been permanently shelved. Take the fit and proper person test for the ownership of football clubs. It failed to stop a Thai politician—a former prime minister with a notorious human rights record—from acquiring a major club in this country, or unknown owners from controlling other great clubs which are essential to the sporting culture. It is important to our sports culture and to fans.
I understand that there is no room for a sports law in the Queen’s Speech—I am coming to the end, I promise. Governments should stay out of sport. However, the deal ought to be that they are entitled to designate the lead associations to regulate each sport, to set out the regulatory requirements and standards in the conduct of international sport. In the case of the FA, it will be a daunting task to take even the most modest steps. However, it is time for that organisation and for other sporting organisations to step up to the mark. Let us try to eliminate corruption wherever it exists, not least in those things which are so dear to people’s hearts.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I apologise because I will be unable to be present during the wind-up speeches. However, my noble friend Lord Hennessy will approve of the reason, which is that I will be taking part in the debate on Scotland, which, as he rightly says, is of such huge importance. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for her emphasis on the forthcoming conference on the issue of sexual violence in this country and not least to the terrible things that are happening in northern Nigeria.
Very quickly I will point out—not least to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who made a major contribution on Somalia—that sexual violence has always been associated with conflict and war, but that the key difference between now and the past is that it is now seen in some areas as a specific strategic object of war to direct sexual violence not just at women but, not least, at children. According to the United Nations Population Fund, there were some 16,000 claims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo last year. It said that those were the “tip of the iceberg”—the actual figures would have been far higher. It is even more troubling that very many of those affected were under the age of five.
A more recent example, also from the United Nations Population Fund, relates to Syria, where some 38,000 cases of sexual violence against women have been reported. Again, however, the key factor is that many of those girls had been killed by their own family because of the dishonour that rape had brought upon that family. In other words, in the case of Syria the victim was once again the victim, rather than the perpetrator. There are two reasons why that is so important, apart from the fact that it is so important in itself.
First, the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war goes beyond almost anything ever accepted in international law as being an appropriate weapon of war. It even goes beyond what St Thomas Aquinas said about war in the 13th century. Secondly—and it is important that this point is made—we live in a world where demographically the proportion of girls who survive birth is dropping steadily. We do not often recognise that. It is estimated that a surplus of some 34 million men exist in China because of the single child policy, and there is a similarly huge majority of young boys in India compared to young girls because of the practice, sometimes, of infanticide towards girl children.
That really means we are looking at a world that is likely to be more violent and more conflicted than ever before. A week ago I heard Kofi Annan say—I thought it was very interesting—that in his experience as United Nations Secretary-General he looked continually to societies where men and women were equal, to societies that were able to be negative to conflict. Where they were not equal—it is important to note on that, sadly, in much of the Arab world there is no move towards equality of the kind so essential to economic and cultural development—one is seeing yet a further enforcement of what one might describe as a rejection of the female element in a good society.
Let me finally turn to the second of the Government’s proposed summitry, an excellent decision; that is looking at the position of Boko Haram in northern Nigeria. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly referred to the significance of the Commonwealth. This is an area where the Commonwealth could be crucial. It could bring together the training of police for the protection of children in school, including the security of school and university buildings. Perhaps even more importantly, it could look at how, particularly in the case of northern Nigeria, one could set up a Commonwealth group to include, also at our invitation, the French, many of whose former colonies surround the members of the Commonwealth not least in west Africa. There would then be an immediate reaction to anything as awful as the kidnapping of the 300, now, young women in Nigeria, contributing to the country in a way that could not be equalled in any other way. The Commonwealth as a whole should address this issue and bring every possible form of expertise to bear in how to protect these young women.
The presence of young women is a crucial part of the development of societies, particularly developing societies. It is very important that Britain, with her past relationship in this whole area with the Commonwealth, should create a centre which should be seen by any as a source of information and of training, and, above all, a moral certitude of the importance of tackling this dreadful problem.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, many things have changed in the 11 months since last year’s debate on the humble Address. Some things have improved, such as the UK’s broader economic outlook. Some have loomed larger and grown more intense, such as the debates on Europe and the proposed separation of Scotland from the United Kingdom. However, for those of us interested in security and international order, things have become markedly worse.
This time last year we were hoping, against all our instincts, that Secretary of State Kerry might make some real progress on the Middle East peace process. The pessimistic angels of our nature, alas, proved only too right on that particular issue.
This time last year there was some hope that inclusive governance in countries such as Egypt and Libya might gain a firmer footing. In 2014 that hope has grown fainter.
I cannot claim that we had many realistic hopes for progress in Syria last year, but the outcome has been even worse than our fears. Meanwhile, the political and security situation in Iraq has continued its downward spiral, as we have seen most recently with the events in Mosul.
On a slightly less gloomy note, negotiations continue on the Iranian nuclear programme, and while many obstacles remain, we still have the chance of a deal. However, lest we become too cheerful, events in Pakistan serve to restore our sense of gloom. There, Government hopes of political progress with the Taliban have proved illusory. The recent attack at Karachi airport demonstrates vividly how seriously the internal security situation has declined in that country.
In Europe we face the prospect of a major power ignoring state borders and international agreements to which it is a signatory. Whatever provocation Russia may feel it suffered, nothing can justify its actions in the Crimea and subsequently.
Further afield, frictions continue over the South China Sea, and both the United States and China raised the temperature considerably at the recent Shangri-La dialogue. North Korea remains as dangerously delusional as ever. I could go on, but time does not permit.
What can we conclude from this tale of woe? For my part, I believe that we are witnessing two major strategic shifts, both of which could pose serious challenges to our future security and prosperity. The first, and most obvious, is the rising economic might of China and its use of increasingly sharp elbows on the international scene. The major points of friction may be far removed from us geographically but, in this globalised world, the consequences will certainly be felt here. The second development is the continued unravelling of the Sykes–Picot agreement, and the subsequent post-1918 arrangements that were intended to tidy up the detritus of the Ottoman Empire. The most malign consequence of this is the growth of an ungoverned space straddling the Syria-Iraq border, and the emergence there of extremist Islamic groups, such as the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria.
This is the backdrop to the rapidly approaching general election, and the subsequent security and defence review. It is not a pretty picture and, on the assumption that the United Kingdom still has the strategic intent to contribute to the international order and stability that are so important to this nation, it will require some serious thought. There has already been debate over the lessons we should draw from Russia’s actions in Ukraine. No doubt there are many, but for me there is one that stands out above all others, the lesson that the Athenians taught the Melians during the Peloponnesian war: the strong do what they can; the weak suffer what they must. In a number of ways, we in Europe have grown weak.
The foundation of nearly all power is economic strength, and it is right that over the past few years we should have concentrated on this. We also have in this country a very useful range of soft power tools, and I look forward to the coming debate on the Select Committee report on that issue. But hard power is a key element in the mix, and we are approaching some hard choices on this score in the next defence review. The 2010 defence review sacrificed a degree of strategic coherence in support of economic and fiscal retrenchment but, as the Prime Minister acknowledged in announcing the results of the review, restoring that coherence, in Future Force 2020, would require real-terms increases in the defence budget in each of the years from 2015 onwards. The Chancellor has already made it clear that further belt tightening will be required after the general election. This may be so, but a failure to fund defence as envisaged in the 2010 defence review will fatally undermine the plans for Future Force 2020, and lead inevitably to further capability and manpower reductions in the Armed Forces. We must ask ourselves whether that would be a wise response to the massive challenges to international order that I have outlined. This is a serious question about a crucial issue, and it deserves serious debate. I hope that over the next 11 months we will have the chance, within your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, to conduct just such a debate.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister highlighted the forthcoming Commonwealth Games and the World Cup in her opening speech. She spoke of soft power, and sport was, of course, a key part in the deliberations of the committee chaired on that subject by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford. I note that “culture” lies in the title of today’s debate, Either there is a typo in the omission of “media and sport” or, more likely, it is an all-embracing recognition of the Corinthian ideal of sport for the able-bodied and disabled alike as inherent in the Foreign Office’s lexicon of a civilised culture.
In reflecting on the brave speech of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, I believe that it is the governance of sport that is the central issue for the solution to the development of sport in the United Kingdom, and it should be central to our influence within international federations of sport. The rapid global commercialisation of sport over the past 30 years has transformed the relationship between sports policy and the law-makers across the world. The autonomy of sport or, as the European Union calls it in the Nice treaty, the specificity of sport, is important, but it must be earned—it is not a right. Governments, either directly through Treasury support on financial guarantees for major events or indirectly through lottery funding, have significantly increased investment in the sector and placed growing importance on sport and recreation in government policy formulation, including overseas development and diplomacy.
We need to address the consequences of this generational change. We must capture the inspiration of a nation that embraced the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and will do so again through the Commonwealth Games. The soft power accrued from these Games should not be underestimated. We need to look to government to deliver a sports legacy from the 2012 Games—a legacy still capable of transforming the sporting landscape of the United Kingdom in terms of facilities and opportunities, especially for our children, able-bodied and disabled, in all our schools.
We need to bring professional management, accountability and transparency to the organisations that run British sport, and through our influence abroad, to the international bodies that regulate and direct international sport. The need for good governance in sport—along the lines of that required for FTSE 100 companies or major not-for-profit organisations in the United States—is essential if we are to protect the interests of athletes in the future. Only by demonstrating good governance in sport can the Government and British sports administrators use their influence internationally. Only through taking action to introduce best governance among international bodies and federations will the problems that have already beset many of the international organisations—from FIFA today, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, bravely stated; to the IOC in Salt Lake City in 2002; to Formula One in recent years—be consigned to history. This is all the more important in the complex world of lex sportiva, in which international organisations and federations set the administrative regulations and dispute-resolving mechanisms of sport, while national Governments and international law are ineluctably playing an increasingly important and active role. It is simply no longer the case that sport and politics can or should be neatly separated.
We need action on behalf of spectators and supporters. Supporters should have at least some representation on the boards of their clubs, thus ending years of disfranchisement. We should substantially strengthen the opportunities for disabled access to sporting venues, in line with the guidelines of the International Paralympic Committee. We need an athletes’ charter to ensure that the voices of our sportswomen and men are heard, and that the many concerns they are expressing are acted upon by sport governing bodies that must follow unimpeachable good governance. We need the Government to become accountable to Parliament for the formulation and delivery of such a sports policy—principally but not exclusively through the Department of Health in the fight against obesity, the Department for Education in all our schools, the Home Office and the DCMS. We need a policy which looks to the Government to act as an enabler, not a micromanager, and to the Minister responsible to have the influence to co-ordinate policy from the centre.
National Health Service: Hospital Beds
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s report on the number of hospital beds per person in the United Kingdom in comparison to Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, numbers of hospital beds per person do not provide meaningful comparisons of good-quality care. Our NHS is making efficient use of its beds by judging patient demand and managing bed numbers accordingly. In the NHS, as in Europe, the number of beds has reduced because progress in medical technology is enabling more patients to be treated and discharged on the same day, and average length of hospital stay has reduced over the past decade.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, France has twice the number of beds we have here in the UK while Germany, I think, has nearly three times as many. We are now seeing dangerous levels of overcrowding, with greater risk of infection due to beds not being cleaned properly in time. Does the Minister not see that this is very reminiscent of the previous time his party was in office and that the NHS is just not safe in their hands?
Earl Howe
No, in a word. First of all, it is very important to compare like with like. A number of other health systems have completely different models from our own. For example, they still have large, long-stay hospitals for people with mental health problems and older people. The NHS has a strong primary care tradition and is committed to providing care in the community. Some of the statistics that have been collated by the OECD include systems in Europe where nursing home beds are included in the figures or indeed the private sector. We are seeing healthcare infections at their lowest ever levels. There have been dramatic falls in both MRSA and C. diff infections since 2010.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
Would my noble friend like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, how funding is undertaken in Germany? German hospitals are funded on the basis of length of stay. In this country, we have demonstrated that we can get patients home much more quickly, particularly after surgery, with the use of day case surgery. Furthermore, Sweden has fewer beds than we do.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is there any linkage between hospital-acquired infections and the reduction in the number of beds?
Earl Howe
My Lords, no. By comparing the OECD bed-provision data and the 2011 joint prevalence survey, the available European data indicate that bed provision and healthcare-associated infection rates across countries are not correlated. Indeed, as I have said, we have seen a dramatic fall in the number of healthcare-associated infections in hospitals, combined with a rising level of demand for in-patient beds.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned France. In France, most patients who have had a hip replacement spend a month in a convalescent hospital having in-house physiotherapy, whereas of course in the UK most people return home. I wonder whether my noble friend can tell us whether there are data to show how medical technology has improved both hospital care and community care, so that we can confirm the OECD report’s phrasing that the reduction in the number of hospital beds,
“has been driven … by progress in medical technology”.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we have one of the highest rates of bed occupancy in the EU, approaching 90%, and yet we have the lowest average length of stay? All this makes it extremely difficult to think about reducing bed numbers still further.
Earl Howe
In fact, average annual bed occupancy rates have been stable at around 84% to 87% since 2000. Of course, that rate goes up and down. We know that winter sees greater pressure on bed occupancy, but the NHS has long experience in managing peaks in demand, particularly over the winter. We do not set optimum bed occupancy requirements on the NHS. As the noble Lord knows well, that is a matter for the local NHS to manage.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the previous Government did not run their NHS policy on the basis of the number of beds in the NHS, and rightly so? Will he continue robustly to reject the arguments of those who, using beds as a criterion, are so out of date with modern medicine delivery?
Earl Howe
My noble friend has encapsulated the point very well. One cannot correlate bed numbers as a stark statistic with the quality of care that a health system delivers. Our system is dependent not just on acute settings but on care in the community, and that is where the focus should rightly lie at the moment.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Then can we look at outcomes rather than beds as far as the OECD figures are concerned? For the United Kingdom, I will take just three factors: infant mortality, cancer survival rates and obesity. We are beyond the 20 best performers in terms of outcomes—20 OECD countries do better than us. Why are we operating so poorly compared with these other countries?
Earl Howe
There are a number of issues there. The noble Lord is right to raise obesity, in particular, where only one solution is available to us, which is a public health policy which embraces all parts of the system and, indeed, individuals. The issues that he raises are too complex for me to encapsulate in a short answer but I will be happy to write to him about what we are doing in all three areas. He is of course absolutely right to raise them as very important issues for the health service.
Business Rates
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have proposals to reform or abolish business rates, particularly those applicable to the retail trade.
Lord Naseby (Con)
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 a member of my family works in the retail trade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have introduced a number of measures that have reduced business rates significantly. We have also published a discussion paper about ways to improve the administration of the rating system.
Lord Naseby
I thank my noble friend for that Answer, and in particular pay tribute to the way in which she has taken forward some of the earlier questions that I have asked on business rates. Is she aware that over the period from 2012 to 2016, business rates will have gone up by 18%? Thankfully, the production from corporation tax will have fallen by 18%. Against that background, is it not time that we had a complete reassessment of business rates and how they affect our high streets? Nowhere else in the world is our high street, or anybody else’s high street, affected by such a fixed-rate tax against, and regardless of, the trading that goes on in the retail scene.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My noble friend is a strong advocate for the retail trade and I am proud that this Government are a strong supporter of the retail sector. It is important for us not to see business rates in isolation. We have the most competitive tax system in the G20 for businesses. It is important that I emphasise to the House that the measures to reduce business rates for businesses announced in the Autumn Statement last year are worth £1 billion. Half of them were aimed specifically at the retail sector and town centres.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there is a big issue still to be addressed? In particular—there are many other points that I could make but time will not allow—there is the differential between small shops and the bigger retailers. There is a massive unfairness there which has been evident for some time, and I very much hope that the Minister and the Government will consider looking at this serious issue.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
There is no difference in treatment in terms of the business rate between businesses on the high streets and those located outside town centres. As I mentioned, the Government have made sure that their support is very much focused on the retail sector. We have made other measures, particularly the £1,000 discount for those with rateable values of below £50,000, which is aimed very much at small businesses.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the best way to support small businesses would be to prioritise the cutting of business rates in 2015 and freezing them in 2016, as we have proposed, rather than provide a corporation tax cut to some 80,000 businesses? That would help 1.5 million small businesses. Is the noble Baroness aware of reports that identify the negative effects of the Government’s decision to delay the next business rate revaluation? In particular, due to the delay, struggling retailers in the north of England are now subsidising luxury retailers in London’s West End.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As the noble Lord knows, we decided to postpone revaluation to provide certainty and stability. The Valuation Office Agency suggests that 800,000 premises would have seen a real-term increase in their rates at a 2015 revaluation had we carried one out. This would compare to only 300,000 seeing reductions, so I suggest the decision that we made was the right one.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, how does my noble friend think that high street shops can compete when they have the burden of rents and rates, and are competing with online retailers such as Amazon, which pay no corporation tax? Is it not time that we looked at the tax system with a view to the implications of the growth of online shopping?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As my noble friend knows, the way in which the Government consider the tax regime for businesses as a whole is something that we continue to study. Fundamentally, we are anxious to ensure that we have the best tax system for British business and that we continue to encourage growth in this country.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the register of interests in which I disclose that I am a director of Blue Inc, a profitable company with some 200 shops in the UK. Does my noble friend agree that the Labour Party proposals of an annual revaluation of all retail properties to assess rates would just produce another administrative burden on retailers at a time when they least need it?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The Labour Party policy paper to which I think my noble friend is referring suggests a range of measures. I can be very clear on one measure with which we disagree: a measure to introduce business rates for farmland and farm buildings, which would certainly lead to an increase in the cost of living by forcing up food prices.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord might care to know that the paper to which he refers is not Labour Party policy or part of the Labour Party’s policy review. That is another fiction from Members opposite.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is not intending to introduce business rates for farmers. I am sure they will be very pleased to hear that.
Lord Cormack (Con)
With reference to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, surely it would be right for the Government to look again at online retailing. Shops in the high street bring life to our communities; online retailing spells death for them.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Both my noble friends make an important point about the increase in online shopping, which is the new way in which people are spending their money and doing their shopping. It is important for us to introduce measures that support high streets and town centres, and that is what we are doing. Alongside these changes in business rates, we are making changes to reduce burdens on parking and making sure that town centres and high streets thrive. We have to be able to combine what we are doing on business rates with other measures that are particularly targeted at high streets.
Lord Davies of Coity (Lab)
My Lords, it is well known in the retail sector that a large number of the workers are part-time. They earn very little money. We have recently seen that not even the minimum wage is paid by some retailers in that area. Will the Minister look at the question of business rates and see the extent to which they will raise the standards of working people in the retail sector?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We have done a huge amount to support the retail sector in the context of business rates. Last year, in the Autumn Statement, we introduced measures worth £1 billion to the business sector, half of which went to the retail sector. Businesses are starting to thrive and it is important that we do not forget that today we were able to see that, under this Government, 2 million new private sector jobs have been created.
Police and Crime Commissioners
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to assess formally the impact and benefit of police commissioners; and whether they intend to publish a report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the best assessment of the impact and benefit of police and crime commissioners will be the one made by voters when PCCs are up for re-election in 2016. The Home Affairs Select Committee recently published its report Police and Crime Commissioners: Progress to Date. From the evidence gathered, the committee concluded that PCCs provide greater clarity of leadership and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction they provide.
Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Non-Afl)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but is the problem not that we have, at immense cost to the public purse, minders who mind minders who are minding more minders? Obviously, we have the unwanted police and crime commissioners elected by less than 20% of voters and supposed to be super-minders. Then there are police authorities, the IPCC, ACPO and the affluent Police Federation all making demands on chief constables and invariably inhibiting their command and control authority and responsibilities. How do we expect such a system to function effectively?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government’s police reforms are working. Crime is down 10% since 2010. We put operational responsibility where it belongs: with the police. We have introduced democratic accountability through the PCCs. The Home Affairs Select Committee report that I referred to found that PCCs’ costs represent the same proportion of the total spending—0.6%—as was spent on the previous system of police authorities.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my understanding of the reasons for the replacement of police authorities by police and crime commissioners was that they were to save money—from what my noble friend just said, that saving does not appear to have materialised—and to improve democratic accountability. How does the appointment of the deputy police and crime commissioners that have proliferated across the country, who are not elected and cost a considerable amount of money, meet the objectives that the Government had in introducing PCCs in the first place?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry but I must disagree with my noble friend. In the old system, of which many Members were well aware, only 7% of the people of this country knew that if they had a problem with the police they should go to the police authority, whereas the latest independent crime survey for England and Wales shows that 70% of the public are aware of PCCs. It is a very effective way of bringing accountability to the police system.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, in one respect—it was not less than 20% but less than 14% of voters who voted for PCCs. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that the principal sales pitch for PCCs was twofold: that they would increase both public engagement with the police and the accountability of chief officers. If the Minister were seeking to persuade the 86% who did not vote, would he feel safe and entirely certain that he could point to the part of the glittering collective record of PCCs which shows that those advertised advantages had happened?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is easy to disparage the work that PCCs are doing. The reforms that the Government are taking through have been made possible because of the accountability of PCCs directly to the public for the work of chief constables in their areas. It is all part of a package. We have a great task ahead of us to reform the institution of policing in this country and the PCCs are part of that process. They represent the democratic accountability, which is an important element of that.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
The Minister said that there had been a great fall in the crime rate. Would he publish the figures of how crime has fallen in the areas that have PCCs and the areas that do not?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Crime is falling because the Government are determined to make sure that the police have the resources in the front line to deal with crime. The PCC system allows democratic accountability at local level so that people are aware of the role that they have in making sure that policing in their area is relevant to their needs. That was not the case under police authorities however well intentioned and hard working they were. Police and crime commissioners have made it possible and I applaud them.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has made the point that the test may well come when police and crime commissioners are up for election. Does he accept that an ironic situation could arise where commissioners will be asked to justify undertakings that they have given and which have not been fulfilled, and say, “It is not my fault but the fault of the chief constable”, and the damage that that could do to the system? Can the Minister tell the House the number of chief officers of police who have been dismissed since the system came into force, and in what other circumstances the Inspectorate of Constabulary has been involved?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord is wrong to assume that those will be the terms under which the election of the successor PCCs will take place. I foresee a considerable interest in PCCs in May 2016; there will be a great deal of public interest in making sure that the people elected to these important posts are in fact the people whom they believe will represent them. As to the figures, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord but I cannot give them to him at the moment.
Health: Transition to Adult Health Services
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure the continuity of standards of care for teenagers with long-term health conditions who transfer to adult NHS services, as recommended in the Care Quality Commission report From the Pond into the Sea.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, our 2013 pledge to improve health outcomes for children and young people included the ambition to co-ordinate care around the individual young person with complex needs to deliver the best experience of transition to adult services. The partners to the pledge—including NHS England and Health Education England—are working to deliver this. Our mandate to NHS England calls for improvements in the way that care supports smooth transitions between children’s and adult services.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. He will know that this is a worrying report and that it would appear that young people with long-term health conditions often fall through the net when they transfer to adult services. He said that the mandate to NHS England requires it to do something about this, but can we be confident that NHS England actually will take note of what Ministers ask for? I would just refer him to the inability of NHS England to implement the Winterbourne recommendations and its failure to fund mental health services in accordance with parity of esteem. Does the mandate amount to anything at all? Too often Ministers have come to this House and said that something would be done, but nothing has actually happened.
Earl Howe
I think that I can reassure the noble Lord on this point. NHS England is currently developing service specifications across the range of commissioning models: specialised commissioning, CCG secondary and primary care commissioning, adolescent mental health and special educational needs, and learning disability. Those will translate examples of best practice and published outcomes into specifications for commissioning to hold providers to account for the delivery of robust transition services with measurable quality standards attached to them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, there is a particular problem with young people who have not only physical problems but very considerable mental health problems. Is a priority being given to help that group of children?
Earl Howe
The noble and learned Baroness is quite right, and as she well knows, this has been a long-standing issue. Our document, Closing the Gap: Priorities for Essential Change in Mental Health, which we published recently, identifies the transition from child and adolescent mental health services into adult services as a priority for action. We are supporting the work of NHS England to develop the service specification which I have just referred to. CCGs and local authorities will be able to use that specification to build excellent person-centred services that take into account the developmental needs of the young person, as well as the need for age-appropriate services.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, problems arising at the transition stage are often reported by the parents of these young people because they are their carers. Does the Minister agree that standards of care must include support for those much-needed parent carers?
Earl Howe
I fully agree. I think that much of this will succeed only if services work together around the needs of young people as well as their families and carers, and if the families and the young people themselves feel involved in the way in which their care is being organised and planned.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, in terms of developing the specification, can the noble Earl tell us how stakeholders are to be involved? In particular, will the young people themselves now have a voice? I declare an interest as the president of Little Hearts Matter, which deals with children with single-ventricle problems.
Earl Howe
I think that we can pay considerable tribute to the Children and Young People’s Health Outcomes Forum. It is one of the bodies that have highlighted the need for more effective transitions and for new outcomes indicators to measure them. Its framework for this year includes a proposal that, where possible, all data should be presented in single-year or five-year age bands up to the age of 25 to support better monitoring. Moreover, the forum asked the National Network of Parent Carer Forums to develop a narrative of what good integrated care looks like in transition. The CQC report has drawn quite heavily on that report in its conclusions.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Teenage Cancer Trust had to battle for years to get NHS commissioners to understand that age-specific rather than gender-specific wards are better for young people. It is a good organisation, but it has been a hard job to change the mindset of the NHS. Can he help organisations such as the Teenage Cancer Trust to find ways in which to influence commissioners far more quickly than they have been able to do in the past?
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises another extremely important point which applies not only to cancer, but also particularly to mental health settings. We have had many debates in this Chamber about age-appropriate settings. I will take her point back with me and find out where we are in our dialogue with stakeholder groups.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House whether the commissioning will specify autism in the service specifications? Further, will the NHS England staff who are responsible for implementing these measures be trained to deal with the issue of autism?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness raises an important point and I can reassure her that we are addressing the full range of complex needs in children and young people. She may also be interested to know that Health Education England will be working with the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to develop a training course that will allow GPs to develop a specialist interest in the care of young people with long-term conditions. The aim is to introduce the course in September 2015. It will include a particular emphasis on the transition from childhood.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Do the Government recognise the need for a champion, such as we have had with Dr Lidstone in Wales, who has completely transformed the transition for children with life-limiting illness?
Succession to Peerages Bill [HL]
Public Advocate Bill [HL]
Governance of Sport Bill [HL]
Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]
Land Value Tax Bill [HL]
Queen’s Speech
(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that, in view of the large number of speakers in today’s debate, we have set a five-minute advisory time. I also advise the House that the G7 Statement will be repeated tomorrow after Oral Questions, rather than today. On these bases, it should be possible for the House to rise by 10 pm.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I ask all noble Lords who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly because other noble Lords are waiting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord West.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, events in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Pakistan, the South China Sea et cetera show that we are in a very dangerous and highly chaotic world, but defence hardly features in her Majesty’s gracious Speech. There is reference to working for peace and security on Europe’s borders, but the only hard piece of planned action on defence is:
“Legislation will be introduced to improve the complaints system in the Armed Forces through the creation of an ombudsman”.
Important though that may be, does it really convince people such as Putin that we in our country take hard power seriously?
To be fair, the gracious Speech does say that the Government will host the NATO summit as a,
“sign of the United Kingdom’s commitment to the Alliance”,
but as our defence spending is, on present plans, after the withdrawal from Afghanistan—and that is before any more cuts in the next spending round—due to fall to 1.7% of GDP, one has to have doubts about that commitment. The US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, urged NATO allies on 3 June this year to raise their defence budgets due to the Ukrainian crisis. He urged NATO to,
“come to grips with the potentially dire consequences of current trends in reduced defence investment—consequences that … pose as much of a threat to the alliance as any potential adversary”.
Many NATO allies, he said, have slashed defence spending in response to the financial crisis, and only a handful meet NATO’s target of spending 2% of their economic output on defence.
Our nation has slashed spending on defence, and we are guilty as charged. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that he expected the allies to make commitments on military spending at their summit in Wales in September. It is very good that we are holding that summit there, but why have the Government not made that commitment in the gracious Speech? What a wonderful opportunity that would have been. It is all very well to talk of working for peace and security on NATO’s borders, but that demands a strong NATO. What do the Government intend to get out of the conference that is so crucial to the future of NATO? There has been no real indication of and, I fear, no real thought about what we want to achieve.
As an aside, the British people should also be aware that the greatest grand strategic threat to the defence of our islands—something that all of us hold dear—is without a doubt the possible separation of Scotland.
I am sure that your Lordships will be very surprised to hear that I shall now focus on the maritime side of things. The Defence Secretary gave a keynote speech two weeks ago on that topic and said that as we pull out of Afghanistan,
“the primary significance of maritime power will come back into its own again and we are reminded that we are a maritime nation and maritime power is crucially important to our security and to our prosperity”.
Well, bravo to that. He is absolutely right and I feel that he is singing off my hymn sheet, but where is the planned investment to ensure that we have that maritime power? Successive cuts mean that we have 19 escorts to protect British global shipping and international global shipping, all of which is run from London, to escort our forces necessary for global reach, which I think is important, for the protection of our 14 dependencies and to help to ensure the stability necessary for our worldwide investments—which, more than any other country in Europe, I hasten to add, we have in most parts of the world—and our trade. The fact that we have only 19 escorts in our Royal Navy is nothing less than a national disgrace.
A serving admiral recently highlighted in an internal naval publication the impact of cumulative spending cuts on the Navy’s ability to carry out its duties. In particular, he highlighted the price of unrelenting operational tempo due to too few ships and too many tasks. That reads across to the other services as well. Consequently, there is a lack of time for basic maintenance before ships deploy, churn and outflow of staff, and an overreliance on civilian consultants to solve technical problems. He states that overall material readiness continues to decline. Apparently, some warships have had to be towed back to Britain—that is absolutely appalling—after malfunctioning at sea. The number of submarines we have available is at an all-time low. Rectifying that clearly demands investment.
On the plus side, the naming of the first of the new carriers, the “Queen Elizabeth”, on 4 July is something I think our nation should be very proud of—albeit that the process from the SDR in 1998 to the present has been rather tortuous. The second carrier, HMS “Prince of Wales”, is well on its way to completion and it is quite wonderful to go up to Rosyth to see all this amazing work going on. But on current plans, after the investment of over £3 billion in the construction of “Prince of Wales”, it is intended to tie the ship up and not use it or possibly even sell it at a bargain basement price. That is inconceivable when it only costs £70 million to run it each year, if one relates that to the £3 billion. This means that instead of our nation having a carrier available 100% of the time—and, my goodness me, I promise your Lordships that in the next 50 years our country will need that, sadly—we will have one available for only 80% of the time. In a national emergency, of course, we could have had two carriers but we will not be able to generate them very easily.
All my experience, and I am sure that of many of your Lordships, tells me that when a crisis arises it will be in that 20% of downtime. That is the way it goes; the jam always falls downwards. I believe that the money must be found from contingency to run both carriers. After all, on top of all the cuts we have had to defence, defence has given back to the Treasury almost £5 billion in underspend since SDSR 2010. A statement in the gracious Speech about investing to run the carrier and resolve the manning shortfalls would have been very nice, as it would have shown that commitment.
I end by saying that as a nation we should be proud of our Navy, its people and what it achieves around the world, day in and day out, but we are balanced on a knife edge. Without an increase in defence spending, we are on a road to disaster. The Navy will not be able to do what the nation expects of us. In this highly dangerous world, is that really the intention of the Government?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I want to pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. Talks are resuming in Northern Ireland following the Haass process to try to resolve contentious issues on flags, parades and the past. I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House will have hoped that by now we would not need to keep going back to deal with these issues. Sadly, we are not in that happy position.
The Haass process ended at the beginning of January, without agreement. There have been party leader meetings on and off ever since, but after the elections a brief window of opportunity has arisen and the leaders will be having a couple of two or three-day sessions between now and the end of June. While the Haass process dealt with those issues, it was not done on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Unfortunately, Sinn Fein has introduced a new precondition that all these issues must be dealt with or none of them will be dealt with. That is a mistake. We have the potential for an agreement on the parades issue. We are relatively close to one. Given the time of year and the backdrop, I would have thought that we should bank whatever agreement we can get and move on to try to solve something else, rather than leaving everything frozen until you get agreement across the board, which will be very difficult.
It is to that issue that I want to turn. Had we had an agreement at the beginning of January on issues pertaining to the past, what would we have looked like a few weeks later when the on-the-runs issue, of which people were unaware, emerged? It emerged that 350 people had been given royal pardons under the royal prerogative of mercy but, even worse, that 10 years of records of that royal prerogative of mercy have disappeared. How on earth can a record of the royal prerogative of mercy given between 1987 and 1997 have disappeared? Surely, it must be possible to reconstruct a record. I ask the Minister to respond on this. There must still be people serving in departments who were part of it. The office of the Attorney-General must have been involved along with the court office and, of course, the Royal Household itself because Her Majesty has to sign these pardons. Are we to believe that for 10 years Her Majesty’s Government have no record whatever of a royal prerogative of mercy? I am not trying just to make a cheap point. This issue is undermining confidence. People assume that some other dirty deal has been done under the table of which we are unaware. Those are not the circumstances in which positive negotiations can take place to solve our outstanding problems.
I appeal to the Government to address this matter. I have no doubt that they would get whatever help they needed from the previous Government. There must be a way to solve this problem and produce the records. If there is nothing to hide, that is fine; that is one less obstacle. Will the Minister assure us that there are no further deals or understandings with the IRA, Sinn Fein, loyalist paramilitaries or anybody else on issues of justice and matters pertaining to who has been sought and who has not? Such issues are corrosive given the two years of unending elections that we are facing—we have had elections this year, we will have the election next year and there will be Assembly elections in 2016. We have obtained agreement in the past only in circumstances where we have built up confidence. Such agreement is vital for our long-term peace and stability. I appeal to Her Majesty’s Government to tell the House how 10 years of records on such a sensitive issue have disappeared. Will they assure the House that we are in possession of all the information on any understandings that were reached with paramilitary organisations or others so that we can move into the talks with a genuine prospect of reaching a peaceful and successful outcome?
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord West, in dealing with the references in the gracious Speech to foreign affairs and defence. The gracious Speech states that,
“the United Kingdom will work for peace and security on Europe’s borders”.
My comment on that is “borders wherever they may be”.
In her opening speech the Minister referred to seeking to meet the aspirations of the Ukrainian people. One needs to give consideration to the respects in which we may seek to meet those. If that involves Ukrainian membership of the European Union or of NATO, that needs to be looked at very carefully indeed because we need to show greater sensitivity to Russia in respect of some of the changes taking place in Europe, which may have been entered into with perhaps a lack of sufficient consideration of their implications. Russia may see European Union membership as in some ways a stalking horse in relation to subsequent NATO membership. Indeed, we saw the problems that arose over Crimea.
The gracious Speech refers also to the need for,
“stable relationships between Russia and Ukraine”.
I certainly urge that. In a Statement made in the other place that has not yet been repeated in this House, the Prime Minister referred to the need for better relations. It is welcome that Mr Putin met President Poroshenko in Normandy and that Moscow and Kiev are again engaging with each other. I think everyone in this House will recognise that the way through this situation has to be through dialogue. If it develops into conflict, the damage and distress caused to both countries could be very substantial indeed.
The gracious Speech further states:
“My government will host the NATO summit in Wales”.
The noble Lord referred to that. That will be a very important meeting indeed. There is no question in some minds, perhaps including my own, that a few years ago there was a sense of a job having been done with regard to NATO. Peace and security had been achieved in Europe and NATO meetings seemed to have a slightly old-fashioned look about them. Some of the NATO practices then became very valuable in Afghanistan and, most recently, in Libya. However, as the noble Lord said, there are now some serious issues because we have had to stand to with pretty limited forces. There was a certain nervousness in Europe and in some of the ex-Soviet countries, particularly the Baltic countries, about the events in Ukraine and what looked like a pretty thin and inadequate NATO capability at that time. That will need to be looked at again.
I move on to the greatest crisis that we face at this time. I had already written a note about what I might say, which was that it was impossible to overstate the scale of the crisis in the Middle East. I wrote that before Mosul and the announcement today of what could be a total civil war emerging in Iraq. I see suggestions today that those who have now taken Mosul may advance on Tikrit and may even advance on Baghdad as well, which would cause a crisis. A very distinguished person in that region said to me and a few others who were at a meeting not long ago that his fear was that the Sunni/Shia split that is now developing threatened a conflagration that could spread from Beirut to Mumbai. Actually, he was wrong. It is Mali to Mumbai. There is Boko Haram. There is the situation in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon—goodness knows how those countries are surviving some of the pressures on them—and Turkey as well. We know that Somalia is pretty ungoverned space. We know the situation in Yemen. Some may have heard David Miliband talking today about the situation in South Sudan. It is impossible to overstate its gravity. We also have on the agenda our withdrawal from Afghanistan and the undoubted risk that a civil war may develop in that country unless there are some very wise heads involved in trying to resolve the situation.
Against this, we face a massive humanitarian crisis. What does it mean for us? In the first instance, we face a major threat of mass migration out of a number of countries. We can see the horrific stories of what is happening in the Mediterranean and of the number of people who are trying out of sheer desperation to get out of where they are to another country. In the Spanish territories adjacent to Morocco people have stormed the barriers. There are supposed to be 300,000 people waiting in Libya to try to find a way out and into Europe. This is going to be our first challenge.
On top of that, the next challenge we face in this country is terrorism. We have recently discussed the Prevent strategy and the role it can play. The question that arises out of this Queen’s Speech is what it means for defence. I simply make this point and will be extremely brief. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord West. I think there is no question that we face a more dangerous situation. I am not a huge enthusiast for aircraft carriers that need substantial escorts out of the very limited number of escorts that we have, and I would like to see more platforms available for their work. I see that it is said today that the National Audit Office is holding up the publication of a report on the reserves. I am very worried indeed about whether the reserve programme and the numbers for the Army are going to come through. In this dangerous and uncertain world, we now need to look very hard at the situation over our defence expenditure.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by echoing the remarks of the Minister and my noble friend Lady Morgan in congratulating the Government on hosting the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict and in helping change global opinion on this issue. I also thank the Foreign Secretary for standing up so strongly for the rights of lesbian and gay people who are facing not only discrimination and anti-gay laws but also increased violence, as we have witnessed in Russia, Uganda and, sadly, on the streets of London, too.
While I remain disappointed that the Government have failed to meet their pledge to legislate, I welcome their achievement in reaching the UN’s target for spending 0.7% of gross national income on aid. I hope this commitment will become an enduring political consensus, but we need to do far more to persuade many of the public. We need to make the case strongly and at every opportunity that development changes and saves lives. We also have to make the argument that development is also in Britain’s best interests. The UK would be much better off growing and trading within a strong global economy with a sustainable climate, supported Governments and secure borders, as the noble Lord, Lord King, argued so strongly in his own contribution.
The worldwide improvement over the past 50 years has been widespread, but too many people have been left behind. Inequality is growing. Seven out of 10 people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the past 30 years. Too often, people say that there is a choice between the interests of richer countries and those of the developing world, but we know that improving tax fairness benefits both the developed and the developing world. Climate change, too, affects all of us, rich and poor. The World Bank and the UN have both outlined the serious impact that climate change is already having and will continue to have on achieving our international development goals.
The coalition describes itself as the greenest Government ever, yet says little on climate change these days. It would be helpful to know more about how DfID is ensuring that all of our investments are climate resilient. In advance of the two major UN conferences on climate change and international development next year, it would be good to hear from the Minister how the Government are co-ordinating their engagement on these two opportunities, the outcomes of which are clearly so dependent on one another.
Today, the issue is less about how much we spend and more about how we spend it. Legislation to introduce a public register of beneficial ownership is a positive step in the gracious Speech. It is really important that we increase transparency in company ownership. The best recent estimates suggest that between $21 trillion and $32 trillion in private assets alone are held in tax havens—an estimated 23% to 30% from developing countries. In fact, developing countries lose between $120 billion and $160 billion annually in lost tax revenues due to illicit financial flows. This loss is greater than the entire global aid budget.
Greater transparency in company ownership will make a huge difference in stopping money from being illicitly taken away from developing countries. Labour is committed to restructuring our existing support by, first, doubling the £20 million DfID currently gives to help Governments build up their own tax-collecting capabilities. If successful, we will look at going even further. This is development for the long term, which can pay for itself.
However, if we are to challenge the root causes of inequality in our world, it will mean changes for working people, too. Decent jobs under decent conditions for decent pay are a vital part of development as well. I think we were all shocked to see the revelations of slavery in today’s Guardian. They are truly shocking. This brutal abuse of migrant labour in the name or profit and cheaper food has to stop. That is why Labour will reverse the Government’s decision to withdraw funding from the ILO, and we will work with our international partners like the ITUC to ensure that those who have the will to work hard can have the power to get on. Empowering the powerless is what we will do, and, under Labour, that will be what DfID will stand for.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I will talk about something rather different: namely, culture. Frankly, the fact that it has been tacked on to a debate in which the rest of your Lordships are speaking, with great erudition, about more interconnected subjects, is symptomatic of how the DCMS has to struggle to get heard in government. Despite the greatness of this country’s cultural heritage and endeavour, the subject is somehow a poor relation as far as the arena of political debate is concerned. I know that so many noble Lords in this House are interested in culture, but I think that probably about three of us will talk about it today.
However, at least culture has made it as a subject for debate; in the past it has not even done that. I am glad to say that I do not think that that will not happen again, as the contribution of culture to the economy across the multiplicity of areas that are the creative industries has begun to be recognised. Statistics published in January reveal that the UK’s creative industries are now worth £71.4 billion per year, and that in growth terms they are outperforming all other areas. However, things could be even better. Most creative businesses are small or medium-sized and their business plans involve risk and unpredictability, so they require support in order to achieve their potential.
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree with me that the coalition Government are to be applauded for establishing the industry-led Creative Industries Council, which is also attended by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for BIS. The council has been working on identifying barriers to greater growth and will be launching its industry-led creative industries strategy in July. I hope that the Government will act on its recommendations.
The small businesses Bill will provide an improved framework for small businesses to compete successfully, making it easier to start up a business and to gain finance through innovative new sources of finance such as crowdfunding.
The creative industries are important not just for domestic growth but because they help the UK compete effectively on the world stage. I am lucky enough to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Mexico, and have seen that. Two weeks ago I was handing out prizes to young Mexican entrepreneurs who won a trip to the Digital Shoreditch festival and the chance to find out about the opportunities offered by London’s Tech City. Mexico is in the process of undergoing important reforms, and one area—telecoms—opens up great opportunities for the UK. The Mexicans love British television. One of the great aims of the Secretary of State for Culture is to have a Mexican “Downton Abbey”—which, I am afraid to say, and with apologies to ITV, he believes, however often I tell him otherwise, is made by the BBC.
That leads me to another way in which culture plays a crucial role in promoting our nation’s prosperity: through soft power, which was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. Cultural diplomacy is a major tool by which others understand who we are, what we stand for and what we offer. The BBC is one of the UK’s leading assets in this area because it is respected as being accurate, impartial and objective—a lens through which we are seen by many abroad. It also acts as an important catalyst to creativity at home. As we all know, charter renewal is upon us. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that despite recent difficulties the BBC, funded by the licence fee, should be protected and celebrated.
To have great culture and a thriving creative sector, we need the creators, and one of the biggest challenges the creative industries face is retaining expertise while promoting new talent. We have a booming sector with a skills shortage, so the Government are to be congratulated on the fact that apprenticeships in the creative industries have increased by 155% since 2009-10 and are set to increase further next year. The Lib Dems have been the driving force behind this, and we are now working on how to simplify the route for employers to provide such placements.
However—and finally—we need to start earlier. Does my noble friend agree that it is a sad fact that Darren Henley’s review into cultural education, which on its launch was so warmly greeted by the Secretary of State for Education, should two years later be sitting on a shelf rather than being implemented across our schools? Let us get it off the shelf, dust it down and help ensure that the UK’s creative and cultural industries lead the world.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, ostensibly, few constitutional Bills were listed in the gracious Speech. Apart from the Wales Bill and the recall of Members of Parliament Bill, no others appear obviously constitutional and yet we all know that this year may mark momentous constitutional changes.
I am one of those fortunate people with an Irish, a Scots, a Welsh and an English grandparent. I am a person of the UK. Three of my four grandparents were in uniform in the First World War—the fourth had very young children and was not. Looking ahead, if the majority who will be eligible to vote and do vote in the Scottish referendum vote yes, much will change. For those of us with multiple allegiances this is deeply painful. It is, in effect, like being told that that the family is to be broken up, while being denied voice or vote.
I want to ask the Government about what may prove a deep lacuna in the preparation for the possibility of a yes vote. I say this in spite of having read and profited from the report from the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. Those fortunate enough to be resident in Scotland, whether Scots or not, will have voice and vote, but who will speak for the rest of the UK? I appreciate the Government’s reasons for not, as the phrase goes, pre-negotiating for something that may not arise, and the report endorses the Government’s position on that point. However, neither government policy nor the report has provided any clarity about who will speak for those UK citizens not resident in Scotland. The Government of Scotland will speak for those resident there and the assumption appears to be that the Government of the UK will speak for those resident in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. This proposal may be convenient, but I believe that it is flawed.
Until the date of independence, whenever that might be, the Government of the UK will remain the Government of Scotland, together with the Government in Edinburgh with their already extensive competences. This is not disputed: it is after all the context of the referendum. Consequently, during the period of any negotiation, the Government of the UK must maintain responsibility for Scotland. I do not think we can expect the Government of the UK to, so to speak, sit on both sides of the negotiating table. At the stage of negotiation, the Government of the UK will not be, as the report helpfully puts it, the Government of “the continuator state”—they will remain the Government of the UK as constituted at present. Only after independence and the constitution of Scotland as a successor state will the Government of the UK become the Government of a continuator state.
It is therefore important to think now about the way in which the interests of those who will, if things proceed to separation, later be citizens of the continuator state are to be represented in any negotiation. There will be difficult matters to be negotiated: the allocation of the national debt; the allocation of oil and gas reserves, which is different from other allocations of fixed assets; the provision and protection of pensions, to say nothing about banking; the provisions for those who study outside the jurisdiction where they have grown up; and the eligibility of researchers resident in Scotland to apply for UK research funding, which means so much for the excellent universities of Scotland.
The report from the Constitution Committee addresses a number of political issues that will arise in any transition, including how to determine the date of exit of Scottish MPs from this Parliament and whether to end the service of Scots judges on the Supreme Court. However, there remains the most basic question of who speaks for whom. Who speaks for England, Northern Ireland and Wales? How do we ensure that those who are to negotiate are not compromised by conflicts of interest because they remain representatives of the Government of the UK as constituted at present?
I should declare a further interest here, in that the outcome of these negotiations is a very particular concern, indeed an anxious concern, to everyone from Northern Ireland, with its close cultural and other ties to Scotland and its still-fragile peace process.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I should like to comment on four themes of the Minister’s inspiring opening speech. First, on gender-based violence, I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and other noble Lords in commending the Government’s excellent work, in particular that of the Foreign Secretary. As we have heard, gender-based violence is pervasive, not only in the extreme evil of wartime rape but in other appalling examples of oppression that have been mentioned, including recent incidents in Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia and, if I may add, the recent gang rape and subsequent hanging of three young girls in India.
Notable cases have caught public attention, but they are the tip of a dark and deadly iceberg of often hidden harm to women, part and parcel of a wider picture of human rights abuse, societal vulnerability and underdevelopment that needs our persistent attention. It is therefore good that the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 now means that no matter who is in government, the Department for International Development will have a legal duty to consider gender in its decisions. However, as noted by the International Development Committee in its report last year:
“Too few DFID programmes address the underlying social norms that drive violence”.
I know that these are matters of serious concern to the Secretary of State for International Development, so it would be good to hear from the Minister what steps are planned to intensify the department’s attention to socially sanctioned gender-based violence, including the measures that are being taken to involve grassroots organisations, religious communities among them, in its programming and funding.
Secondly, on freedom of religion and belief, I am grateful for the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to the persecution of Christians, but of course there are other religious groupings—Baha’is in Iran and Muslims in Burma, to name just two—that also face severe violence and the threat of violence to adhere to majority religious norms. I am very grateful for both the renewed parliamentary attention to issues of religious freedom and the commitment that the Government have shown to protecting this most basic right. However, I am concerned that the Government may be investing too much energy and expectation in the OIC-led initiative on defamation of religions. I hope that the Government are alert to the danger that the concept of defamation of religion may provide a cloak under which a state acts to repress both religions and individuals who, in expressing their own faith and belief, with no intention of offending another faith or inciting hatred, may none the less be perceived to have contravened the tenets of the majority religion.
The third theme is Syria, a land once exemplary in its religious toleration but one where women now suffer the violence of war, including sexually. Three years on, the conflict is a deadly stalemate. The Government’s efforts to alleviate humanitarian needs are commendable but, as they recognise, a political solution remains the only way out of this conflict. I would welcome their view on whether Friends of Syria could do more to discourage the political factionalism that has crippled the Syrian National Council and caused a dangerous separation between the external political leadership, the armed insurgency fighting on their behalf and local communities traumatised by the ravages of war. For Syria to stand a chance of a better future, the international community needs to do more to develop a bottom-up and inclusive peace process. This must include all religious communities. Their voices need to be heard, not marginalised.
Fourthly, there is the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness the Minister, who said that the anniversary struck the chords that define our national identity and should determine our foreign relations: liberty for the enslaved; justice for the oppressed; prosperity and peace for all; reconciliation between enemies; a common commitment to build a better, fairer future; and a determination never to return to the horrors of war between our nations.
These are themes that we have the opportunity to celebrate again with even more vigour in 2015, when we mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the war and acknowledge the trauma of its closing months for armed personnel on every side and for the inhabitants of German and Japanese cities. They are principles of peaceful living and practices for reconciliation that address the deep causes of the oppression of women, the persecution of religious minorities, and of war itself. They give a vision for our role in the world, for which the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, called.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I am reminded of how quickly things in life change. One of the most vivid political memories of my life was being at Chequers on that Sunday when Margaret Thatcher first met Mikhail Gorbachev. It was that afternoon when she said those memorable words:
“This is a man with whom I can do business”.
That meeting was the start of what brought an end to the communist-inspired Soviet Union. Now, however, having seen it collapse, we see Mr Putin making continuing efforts to put it all together again. One might say that Humpty Dumpty lives again. I wish to talk about three of his efforts to put it together, and what might be our reaction.
First, Mr Putin has been trying to create an economic Eurasian union. He has already signed up Belarus and Kazakhstan; he did that in Astana a week or two ago. Some of the previously Soviet “stans” and Armenia are already expressing interest in joining. I think it was Hillary Clinton who said, some time ago, that we ought to try to stop it, but I should like to know how we could do so. My view is that there is not much we can do if those countries are willing partners of Mr Putin.
Secondly, and much more alarming, is the way in which he is going about it by military excursions to restore parts of the old empire. He has already done so in Georgia by taking over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are already occupied with Russian military. I suppose that one of Mr Putin’s great ambitions would be to take over the rest of Georgia, and therefore to control the Caspian Sea pipelines that are not under Russian control as regards the movement of hydrocarbons to western Europe. It is crucial that he fails in whatever ambitions he has to take over the rest of Georgia. I want the Minister in the wind-up to tell us about an important situation. That country is very much hoping that, at the Welsh summit in September, NATO will grant Georgia a membership action plan—a MAP, as it is called. What is the Government’s attitude to that? It will be a difficult decision to take.
We are now faced with Mr Putin’s new incursions into Ukraine and his occupation of Crimea. I suppose Moldova and Azerbaijan could be parts of a future Russian occupation. As far as Moldova is concerned, troops are already well established in Transnistria.
In all Mr Putin’s expeditions and ambitions, the West and NATO have shown great reluctance to get involved militarily. Perhaps our decision not to get involved militarily has given Mr Putin fresh encouragement. However, what we must do regarding these military incursions is react with maximum sanctions. Russia has a weak economy and the sanctions will undoubtedly bite. I realise, of course, that some member states of the alliance are unhappy about the provision of Russian gas. It is necessary that we move, as soon as possible, towards making alternative sources of gas available in those countries where it is important.
I give one small example of sanctions. A few weeks ago in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Riga, where I represented the United Kingdom with others in the standing committee, we agreed to throw out the Russians. We were led by an outstanding speech from Sir Menzies Campbell. A decision was taken to take away Russia’s associate status.
I come to my final point, which is the position of NATO. All our allies are protected by Article 5, which provides that an attack on one is an attack on all. There is concern about this in the Baltic states, but we must make it very clear to Mr Putin that any incursion into any NATO state would result in hard force. In the next few months, I hope that Sub-Committee C, under my noble friend Lord Tugendhat, will look into EU relations with Russia. It is one of the most important challenges that face us today.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, this really is a huge, wide-ranging debate—far too wide-ranging in my view. I do not know how on earth the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will sum it all up, but I am sure all his skills will come into play. There is one thing, at least in my mind, that is very simple about today: there is one issue that is far more important than any of the others that have been discussed, and the issue we will shortly address, which is the future unity of our country.
Having said that, I suppose I should apologise in advance: that is not where I will focus my own few minutes, not least because of one of the contributions in particular, that from my noble friend Lord Reid—although there have been other very good ones as well. My noble friend has made many splendid speeches that I have listened to, but that one took some beating. It was on the weaknesses of the separatist case. It would certainly bear reading or re-reading, I should suggest to anyone who is thinking of doing so.
I am always amused when I hear my good friend Lord Reid speak, and I dare say I will feel similar when my noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord McFall speak. I assume they will address this issue. It is palpably ridiculous to suggest that any of those three and their predecessors, who have presumably been living under the yoke of the union, have somehow become any less Scottish or that their national identity is in any way diminished through all those years of oppression. Presumably I am one of the oppressors; I had not been aware of that, but maybe that is the case. How you can make my noble friend Lord Reid any more of a Scot than he already is is beyond me. Maybe some of the separatists could address those arguments in the period that lies ahead.
I want to use a text on other constitutional issues. My text is from the Queen’s Speech:
“My Government will continue its programme of political reform”.
What political reform? The grandiose schemes for political reform, as outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister shortly after the coalition agreement was signed, were,
“the most significant programme of empowerment by a British government since the great enfranchisement of the 19th Century. The biggest shake up of our democracy since … the Great Reform Act”.
I think that might have been a mild overstatement, but I am happy to say that his attempts at constitutional reform have been largely unsuccessful. I think, for example, of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act. Some people worked pretty hard not to get that on to the statute book. We would have saved a lot of money had people listened to us. I do not have a problem with equalising constituency sizes—that is a perfectly laudable, principled thing to do—but I do have a problem with telling the British people that at the next general election they will have only 600 and not 650 MPs. That would diminish democracy by increasing constituency sizes. I am glad at least that that has been postponed, I hope for good.
I am glad that in the end we had a referendum on the alternative-vote system. It cost £75 million, which we could have spent on other things, but at least the result was terrific and showed British support for the first past the post system. That is something we could certainly adopt for the European elections. Last month we saw the wonderful new PR system that was going to encourage people to flock to the polls as it would give them the chance to express their vote. However, yet again we saw a low turnout for a European vote. Maybe one little bit of constitutional reform that we could have would be to revert to first past the post, and perhaps then we would even get the turnout up to the 36.5% that was achieved the last time the vote was held on the first past the post basis. That would help to reconnect Europe with the people of Britain.
The other great constitutional objective was Lords reform. My word, we gave enough warnings on that, but still the Government ploughed ahead for two years, wasting a lot of money. I checked that in a ministerial Question. The amount was £620,000. Five to 12 civil servants worked on it flat out, all to no avail, and they could not even find an answer to the question, “What would a ‘democratically’ elected second Chamber do to relations between the two Houses?”. All the brains in the top ranks of the Civil Service and all the Ministers could not answer that fundamental question satisfactorily. That is why that reform fell and deserved to fall, and I was very pleased about that.
Given that constitutional reform did not happen at a national level, I am glad that at a local level the mayoral referendums flopped as well. They were an attempt to import some American system of government into this country. There were 10 referendums, which cost us a lot of money as well—£2.1 million. I am happy to say that in nine of those referendums the people, including the good people of Birmingham, sensibly said, “No thanks very much. We don’t want that”.
We have mentioned police and crime commissioners, but I will end on the one reform that is still, for my book, unfinished business: the fixed-term Parliaments legislation. What a disaster that has been. Here we are plodding along. If only the Prime Minister—he is not my Prime Minister, obviously—had the power to say, “Look, we’ve had enough of this. Let’s see what the people think”. However, as we did for the last six months of the previous Session, we have to plod on.
I think that the lesson on constitutional reform has been that all these grandiose schemes really were not worth the paper they were, rather expensively, written on. I am glad that there is nothing like them in the current Queen’s Speech, but I hope that future Governments learn that lesson.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, representing as he does so powerfully the radical and reformist view of the Labour Party.
Europe has been the source and fountainhead of all the really great political ideas and philosophies that we observe: democracy, liberalism, socialism and communism. I was going to say “conservatism”, but somehow I stop short of calling conservatism a political philosophy. Maybe that is wrong and I mean no insult to my coalition friends. Over time, Europe has given birth to all these great ideas that dominate our time. Seventy years ago it gave birth to another one—arguably its greatest, or at least one of its greatest.
After a thousand years of soaking our continent in blood and, by the way, exporting by proxy those wars on to other people’s territory and spilling other people’s blood elsewhere, we decided that it was time to do things in a different way—that Europe would be characterised not by war but by co-operation between the nations of Europe; that we would pool our sovereignties to give us better protection in a hostile and difficult world; and that we would call time on the theory of great powers having the right to suppress the futures and democratic will of smaller nations if they happened to fall within their spheres of influence. And so the European Union and the concept of Europe was established.
At the very moment when each of these threats is no less and some are greater, it is curious and sad that Europe is in such disarray and the cause of Europe is threatened by those who wish to see us retreat towards European isolationism, not just in Britain but elsewhere. This country is now in danger of sleepwalking straight out of the European Union from which it can benefit so much. We should understand the reasons for that. The European Union institutions have not succeeded in taking that transcendental idea and converting it into institutions that work and are functional.
As we know, there are faults in Europe and the European Union. The Prime Minister is right that Brussels interferes far too much in our lives, but so does Westminster. That is a case for reform, not for abolition. The European Union is dysfunctional. I do not need to be told because I know: I was at the front end of the European foreign policy machine in Bosnia. I was told that trying to do things in Bosnia was like herding cats but it was not half as difficult as herding the cats behind me in Brussels. But this institution can be dysfunctional, too. That is a case for reform and not for abandonment.
The European Union is insufficiently democratic. We have failed to create a proper democratic polity, but are we in Britain able to lecture the European Union on the failure of democracy? Sometimes I find it very curious to listen to noble Lords castigating the European Union for a failure of democracy when they come from a Chamber that has no visible connection with democracy whatever. Indeed, that is a cause for reform, but it is not a cause for abolition.
There are two reasons why this idea cannot be allowed to die and why we must do whatever we can to make it functional and working. First, we live in a global world as never before. We separate domestic issues from international ones, but there is no separation: there is no longer any domestic issue that does not have an international quotient, which includes our jobs, our economy, our environment, crime on our streets and our defence. You will not achieve for the British people what you want in a globalised world unless you are prepared to have a sensible policy that gives you influence on the global world. The only way we can do that is by working with our European partners.
I am a passionate pro-European because I understand the European Union is the only way that I have any hope of delivering to the British people the things that I want them to have: that is, jobs, security and defence, and influence in the world that means that we will be able to shape the world’s institutions rather than be shaped by others. Defence, security, the environment and crime on our streets all require co-operation in the modern global world with our other partner nations.
However, there is another reason why we must set our hand to the task of reform, as the Government have done. I do not agree with the Prime Minister on everything that he says but I agree with the thrust. If we do not realise how much the terms of trade of our existence in Europe have changed in the past 10 years, we are bloody fools. We no longer have an Atlantic partner on which we can rely to be our friend in all circumstances and our defender of last resort. America is now looking west across the Pacific as much as east across the Atlantic. We have global economic powers which are bigger than any of the single powers of Europe. They will shape the new institutions and the trading institutions of the world for their advantage. We cannot hope to have an influence on that unless we combine with our European partners.
We now have on our eastern borders a Russian President who is prepared to use tanks and to resurrect the Brezhnev doctrine, and threatens to bring back the idea of great powers that are able to sublimate the will and freedoms of their people if they do not happen to agree with their concept of what their sphere of influence would be. We have to our south a chaotic, dangerous Maghreb and Arab world. If we do not understand that in these new changed circumstances the right reaction for Europe is to deepen the institutions of its foreign affairs, defence and political institutions, we are bloody fools.
If it is the case that we seriously believe that, in the face of these threats, the right response for our country is to retreat individually to the perfect sovereignty of corks floating around behind other people’s ocean liners, then help yourselves. But, in a very turbulent and difficult world, the decades ahead would be much more turbulent and difficult, and much less to the benefit of the people whom we are supposed to serve.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure and a difficulty to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown. I agree with much of what he said. However, I wish to address a particular issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord King, that of Ukraine. If I could catch the Minister’s attention, I would remind her that she told us in her speech that we deprecated the attack on Crimea and the destabilisation of the Donbass and that we welcomed President Poroshenko’s election. I agreed with all that. What I did not hear from her was a policy or a strategy. Sanctions are a very useful support for a strategy but not a substitute for one. I would like to hear a little more about what we are trying to achieve and how we are going about it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord King, I do not think one can approach this without talking to Mr Putin. We need to know what he wants. If Mr Putin wants to break up Ukraine, and really meant that new doctrine about Novorossiya, then there is no deal to be done. If he really means that Ukraine must have no relationship with the European Union, then there is no deal to be done. However, I do not think that even he believes that the association agreement with the European Union prevents a grown-up trade relationship between Ukraine and Russia—which of course it does not. It permits Ukraine to have as many other free trade areas as it likes, and the Russians did not object during the four years in which it was negotiated between Ukraine and the European Union. It is the customs union into which the Russians have spatchcocked Belarus and Kazakhstan that creates the incompatibility, because in that customs union those three countries—Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus—have conferred negotiating powers on the centre, and none of them can now form a free trade agreement with, say, Ukraine or the European Union. However, Mr Putin knows all that. I do not know what he really wants and it surely is an important policy aim to find out.
Last time we talked about Ukraine, I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who presided over the debate, that it might be worth his thinking about talking to Mr Poroshenko and to Mr Putin about the precedent of the Austrian state treaty. The noble Lord gave me a rather dismissive brush-off at the time. I will just make eight quick points in the hope that his doppelganger, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, might be prepared to ask the brilliant young women in the Box for a considered reaction this time. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for the tautology, as all young women in the Foreign Office are brilliant by definition. I will not say that all people from the Foreign Office are brilliant, for obvious reasons, but the young women are extremely brilliant.
First, the Austrians took the initiative and negotiated the treaty in 1955 with the Russians. Secondly, it was premised on the neutrality of Austria. President Poroshenko is not asking to join NATO, although he is saying that he wants Ukraine to join the European Union one day. Thirdly, it guaranteed the rights of the minority communities in Austria. Fourthly, it prohibited Nazi organisations. Fifthly, it left Austria free to negotiate its own external relations, and 40 years later Austria joined the European Union. Sixthly, it prohibited foreign troop deployments or bases, and 40,000 Soviet troops left within a month. Seventhly, outside powers, including us, were brought in as guarantors and nobody lost face. Eighthly, it worked—to the benefit of Austria and all of us.
If Mr Poroshenko means what he said in his inauguration speech, the points that he raised would be covered in an agreement along the lines of the Austrian state treaty. And it seems not inconceivable that even Mr Putin might be prepared to accept that he could follow a precedent set by Mr Molotov. This is a shot in the dark—I do not know—and there may be many better ways of achieving conflict prevention and resolution in Ukraine. However, we have to try. It is not enough to threaten and say, again and again, “There will be consequences”. We need to talk to the Russians, talk to the Ukrainians and see whether a solution can be brought about. That is my recommendation.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Grocott knows me only too well. I would love to put in my tuppenceworth on Ukraine and the EU but I have a distinct sense that my country needs me at the moment—but maybe it thinks otherwise.
In his excellent contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said that there was a sense of a creeping estrangement within the United Kingdom, largely because of what was happening in Scotland. He is absolutely right and I had intended to raise his concept of a constitutional convention in the course of my remarks today. We have a situation in Scotland where there are now proposals from the three main parties on further devolution. The time is right to re-establish the Scottish constitutional convention to bring in civic Scotland, secular Scotland, religious Scotland and political Scotland together to look at how we move to the next stage of devolution. However, there are many other issues that we have to address and this sense of estrangement really troubles me.
In his excellent speech, my noble friend Lord Reid referred to something that has happened in the past 24 hours—a vicious attack on a young woman, Clare Lally, who had the temerity to voice the arguments for Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom. Part of the campaign against Ms Lally came from someone who, it turns out, is a special adviser to the First Minister, Alex Salmond, someone paid for by the taxpayer. Mr Gunn, a former journalist, has now apologised to Ms Lally but we now know that the social media campaign against her has been so vicious that she has been reduced to tears. She is the mother of two, one of whom is disabled, and she is a carer of the year. Sometimes when you hold high office you have to show leadership. The First Minister has to show leadership—he needs to sack this man. It is a test not only of Mr Salmond as First Minister but of Mr Salmond the man.
Some of us learnt today that JK Rowling has made a donation of £1 million to the no campaign. Set that against the £5.5 million donated to the yes campaign by a couple who won £161 million in the Euro lottery. The reason I mention Ms Rowling is that if anyone looks at the Twitter feed today they will be appalled. I cannot repeat some of the things that have been said. It contains words that I have never used nor ever will use. The politest—and I apologise to your Lordships’ if I cause offence—is where what purports to be a Scottish charity tweets that JK Rowling is a bitch for her Better Together campaign donation. This is a shame on my country and I am appalled. I urge the First Minister to stand up for the decent people of Scotland who will have nothing to do with this.
Turning to some of the other issues, I am not used to buying men’s magazines but I did buy GQ—partly to see what Mr Salmond had said about Vladimir Putin. However, I came across something even more interesting. Mr Salmond has said that, apart from going into monetary union with sterling, there is no plan B. In the GQ article he says that not only does he have a plan B but a plan C, D, E and F. Why are we not being told what plans B, C, D, E and F are? He was challenged two weeks ago to give his figures for the costs of starting up a new machinery of government in Scotland. He plucked out of the air the figure of £200 million. Well, tell that to the Department for Work and Pensions, which spent that much just on the pilot for universal credit. We need answers. It is insulting to the people of Scotland not to give us answers to these questions.
It has already been said by the three main parties that there will be no sterling union. Of course there will be no sterling union. It would be absurd for the rest of the UK to be prepared to bail out a foreign country, which is what Scotland would become, with a liability in its banking sector that is 12.5 times its GDP. I do not mis-speak: it is 12.5 times GDP. That would be barking mad. What is more, it would not be independence. The truly independent way is to have our own currency with our own monetary and fiscal policy and our own exchange rate. We need the truth and we need answers.
I would love to go on for longer, but come 18 September, I will be delighted if I do not have to raise this issue in your Lordships’ House again. I believe that the antipathy, anger, venom and bile that we are experiencing in this campaign, largely but not exclusively from the cybernats and from those in the yes campaign, is a sign that the people of Scotland realise that we are proud Scots who can make our contribution to the United Kingdom, have made our contribution to the United Kingdom and will, please God, continue to do so.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, in the debate on the Queen’s Speech last year, I said:
“Unless those of us who are pro-Europe are able to convince the rest of our colleagues in Europe to take seriously what needs to be done”—
on a series of issues—
“our people will not be persuaded that Europe is a viable entity”.—[Official Report, 15/5/13; col. 441.]
That would be the ultimate tragedy. We have not succeeded, and I think that we have not even gone the right way about trying to persuade our people. All the talk of jobs, the economy, currencies and our standing in the world is not very persuasive, and furthermore it was not the purpose of the European project. The European project was to ensure that we did not go back to killing each other, as one of my noble friends said earlier in this debate.
I find it astonishing that during a period when we have centenaries and other anniversaries to remind us of what we did to each other in Europe in the last century, we seem to have failed completely to address the need to connect the young people of this generation not just with the sacrifices made by those of previous generations, but with the reason for those sacrifices, and thus the reason that the European project is crucial to ensuring that the next generation does not have to make the same kinds of sacrifice all over again. I plead with the Government to look again at the approach they have taken to the European question and to recognise the tremendous opportunity not to use these anniversaries, but to acknowledge that they are being commemorated to ensure that we do not return to war again.
However, it will not be enough just to persuade and argue. For us to attack Mr Putin or other parties is completely futile. We threaten that all sorts of dreadful things will happen, but we do not make the materiel available to ensure that we could do anything. A week or so ago I came back from Helsinki. My friends there are increasingly worried that while NATO can make all sorts of promises about what it might do, it does not have the capacity to intervene anywhere at all from the military point of view—and Mr Putin knows that perfectly well. There is no evidence that anyone in Europe is taking this seriously. We have less and less capacity to defend ourselves without our American friends, so are we taking it seriously?
Last year, I spoke of the Middle East and said:
“I desperately hope that when we come to debate the Queen’s Speech next year we will not do so in the context of some kind of catastrophic conflagration that has developed from the situation in the Middle East, because we are perilously close to it”.—[Official Report, 15/5/13; col. 442.]
The word “conflagration” is precisely the one that was used by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater. He pointed out that the danger is not just in the Middle East itself. He said that it is from Mumbai to Mali. He is right, but Mumbai and Mali are not just “over there” faraway places: they are here in our own towns and cities, where many people look at what is happening to their friends, families and co-religionists and feel moved to act and react. This is not a question simply of foreign policy; it is increasingly a question of domestic policy. If we do not find ways of paying more attention to how we deal with these matters, we will be facing them in an increasingly serious and dangerous way.
Finally, I turn to Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the First Minister, Mr Salmond, has his way, Scotland will be a separate country and, if he has his way, a part of the EU. If Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the possibility of a referendum within the United Kingdom to leave the EU would be much greater, in my view. The border between England and Scotland would become not just an English-Scottish border but an EU border. Furthermore, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—a border we have increasingly been trying to address through the peace process, to make it more open to people—would become an EU border. Whatever the consequences may be on this side of the water, I have to tell your Lordships of my anxiety about what developments of that kind would do to a fragile peace process on my side of the water within the United Kingdom. These are serious issues as well, so serious that they are not simply matters of the Scots and for the Scots—they affect all of us.
All these issues are related. UKIP is not a United Kingdom issue: look at the results of the elections in the rest of Europe and you will see other parties with similar unpleasant, xenophobic, racist attitudes developing in other parts of the European Union. This blowing apart, this mood that is developing of being against the other and turning in on oneself, is not a local matter, it is not a national matter, it is not even just a European matter, but it is a matter that could take us down the road to serious violence, for which I believe we are ill prepared.
It worries me greatly that with matters of this consequence, our Government decide that we should have a one-day debate with more than 80 speakers to address these issues, which could take us down a road leading we know not where. I hope that my ministerial friend will be able to tell us at the end of today that we will have the kind of time that our Government need to take the advice of your Lordships’ House on matters of this danger and consequence.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I should like to move the focus towards Israel and Palestine, where the merciless blockade of Gaza continues, while east Jerusalem and the West Bank remain under occupation and colonial settlements grow daily, in direct contravention of international law. The failure of the Kerry round of negotiations must mean that that drift cannot continue indefinitely. Nearly 50 years of occupation is unacceptable, as is the failure to provide a decent future for the many Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. The status quo is not in the interests of Israel and its neighbours, or of the so-called international community.
That the status quo is unacceptable is not just my opinion. It was stated very clearly by Pope Francis during his recent visit to the Middle East. The Arab League realised this 12 years ago. It is high time that the rest of the world came to that conclusion. Israel could be a partner and a technological guide to the whole region, but for that to happen it will have to change its policies radically. I urge the United States, the EU and all other states of good will to help Israel to make the necessary change of direction. Zionism can no longer aspire to own the whole of mandated Palestine.
On the Palestinian side, I am glad to say that there is some good news. Very recently, the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Hamas reached a reconciliation agreement. This, therefore, was more than an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. The PLO claims to speak for the whole Palestinian people and will be able to do so more convincingly as the agreement is implemented. I was interested that the PLO delegation included my acquaintance and friend, Dr Mustafa Barghouti. He established the Palestinian Health Ministry and represents a non-aligned and non-sectarian part of public opinion. What is more, he is totally committed to non-violence.
The Hamas delegation included the Prime Minister and others who have worked hard to maintain successive ceasefires in Gaza. Cynics may say that there have been previous agreements and that they have not worked. On the contrary, this agreement, the text of which I have seen, builds on the Doha declaration and the Cairo agreement. It contains seven points, the second of which provides for a Government of national consensus. This has now been formed as a caretaker to prepare and oversee elections within six months. There will be a legislature for the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, a President and the Palestinian National Council. The remaining points deal with the implementation of the earlier agreements.
The agreement acknowledges the help given by the Government of Egypt, but we should note that this agreement was not made under intense external pressure, as happened before. The agreement will help to reduce the huge disparity in power that harmed previous Palestine-Israel negotiations. The elections will give democratic legitimacy to a new Government and answer the taunts that Israel has no valid interlocutor.
I therefore ask Her Majesty’s Government: what is their response to the Palestinian agreement and the new Government? Some in Israel and in Congress have condemned it unseen and unheard. I urge Ministers to remember the missed opportunities of the past. Will they give this new departure their fullest support? It certainly deserves it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, first, I compliment her Majesty’s Treasury on what it has achieved for our economy; secondly, I compliment those associated with welfare reform, in particular, my noble friend Lord Freud, on what his department has achieved.
I wish I could say that I complimented her Majesty’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I regret that I am not in a position to do so. I did not support our actions in Libya or our manoeuvrings in Egypt. I was totally against our policy in Syria, and wrote to the Prime Minister accordingly. All those actions have just destabilised that part of the world—and, worse, caused thousands of deaths and millions of refugees. The Syria war was from the start nothing to do with democracy; it was the fourth Sunni-Shia internal war. If we really want peace there, Her Majesty’s Government have to find a means of talking to and working with Mr Putin and Russia.
It will not surprise your Lordships that I want to say a few words about Sri Lanka. I have been involved with that country for more than 50 years, and I think I know its ins and outs pretty well. I am the elected leader of the all-party group. I do not support any particular ethnic group, political party or Government. I have no business interests there—but I do fervently support the ordinary people in Sri Lanka and I wish to ask a few questions of Her Majesty’s Government.
First, Sri Lanka—a former colony, a founder member of the Commonwealth and one of the few countries that supported the United Kingdom over the Falklands situation—finds today that we, the United Kingdom, are exceedingly unhelpful to it. Why is it that we are so anti the democratically elected Government? Why can we not work with them? Why at every turn must we just listen to the vociferous diaspora, which is usually led by former Tamil Tigers? Why do we not understand that the Tigers were terrorists who murdered every moderate Tamil leader they could find, along with two presidents and thousands of other Sri Lankans—all in the cause of a separate state called Eelam. It was rather similar to Pol Pot.
Can we not understand that after 28 years of fruitless negotiations, it was necessary for a new, democratically elected Government to act to destroy the Tigers? Yes, that meant a bloody war, as the Tigers refused to surrender. However, I know that that Government tried hard to minimise casualties. Why do we refuse to publish the dispatches from our own defence attaché, who was an objective assessor? Why do we think that the Sri Lankan army, which we helped to train, is so different from our own Army? After all, there were allegations against our Army in Iraq, as there were against the Sri Lankan army. I think that in both cases they were highly suspect. Certainly in the case of Iraq, they proved to be bogus.
Do I think that there should be an inquiry into the final days of the war? Yes, I do, but it should be a military inquiry, because all the argument is basically about gunfire et cetera. A retired general should conduct it, perhaps from Australia. There is a wonderful Sri Lankan, Sir Desmond de Silva, who has done splendid work in Northern Ireland. There would need to be a gunnery officer, probably from the UK, and obviously somebody from the UN.
It is claimed that the whole issue is about human rights, but I will take just one aspect. I saw the head of the ICRC in Boossa camp and asked him, “Have you, the International Committee of the Red Cross, ever come across terror as defined internationally?”. The answer I got was, “No, I have not and nor have my staff”. How is it, then, that this new group called Freedom from Torture can come up and say that it is rife?
I make a plea that we should work diplomatically with Sri Lanka. That may mean a slightly less subservient approach to the Tamil diaspora and the media around the world. It will mean that the reconciliation, which is already happening, will be speeded up. In what way? They have been very brave in bringing forward trilingualism, which is quite an achievement. Thousands of Tamils have gone back from all over the world to Sri Lanka and settled down quite peacefully. There is total freedom of movement in the country and while there is a lot of criticism of the press, there is actually more freedom of the press in Sri Lanka than in Singapore. Certainly, the LLRC inquiry is slow—but not half as slow as Chilcot has been.
I finish on this note. Over the weekend, I sat and listened to the words of President Obama. He said that we,
“waged war so that we might know peace”.
Why is it any different in Sri Lanka, where so many thousands of young men and women across all ethnic groups gave their lives to rid their country of terrorism?
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, my speech on the Scottish issue will be vigorous and a statistics-free zone. While I recognise the centrality of the economy—not least the currency, which I have mentioned previously—I want to focus on what we have built together these past 307 years and what we may lose if we wake up as foreigners to each other on 19 September. Have no doubt that both of us will be diminished: Scotland in terms of its trade and investment, prosperity and security, and the rest of the United Kingdom in its global authority and position in the world—not least with multinational bodies—and its leadership role, where it has been a beacon as a liberal and harmonious society to many developing and emerging countries.
My simple message today is that all of us need to engage in the national conversation, where warmth and friendship dominate. Let us minimise the abuse and the bitterness so eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who mentioned the abuse encountered by JK Rowling and Clare Lally, a former constituent of mine. We need to elevate this discussion to include what is good, valued and treasured in our relationship in which we have worked together for more than 300 years. However, being Scots, reality must prevail. In my view Simon Schama correctly assessed the situation when he wrote in an article in the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago that the UK is a,
“splendid mess of a union”,
but one which we tear asunder at our peril. He went on to assert that there will be,
“incredulous sorrow at the loss of our common home … A psychological wound will open that is unlikely to heal for a very long time”.
Why should there be sorrow? It is because we have seen the friendships enabled by the union outweigh its enmities. That great Scot Adam Smith introduced a concept of sympathy in 1759 in The Theory of Moral Sentiments which he defined as the capacity to enter into an experience of someone not necessarily like you. In his opinion this was the fundamental principle around which just societies, as well as rich ones, evolved. That has been the history of the United Kingdom.
The very exciting Scottish actor James McAvoy appeared on the “The Andrew Marr Show” two weeks ago. He would not be drawn on how he would vote but in my view he went to the core of the issue when he said that if it matters to your heart and you look at yourself in the mirror and it is important to be separate from people down the road, then you should vote for independence. Therefore, if one needs to jettison the unionist part of one’s soul in order fully to express one’s Scottishness, the only option is to vote yes. However, most of us are content to live with our multilayered identities. Indeed, even Alex Salmond stated as late as January this year that being British was part of his identity.
All my life I have been resident in Scotland but I have lived in England and Ireland and have visited Wales many times. Never have I felt that I was among others who differed fundamentally from me in terms of culture and values. I was struck by differences in background, wealth and political philosophy but those same differences exist within Scotland as they do elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, who has first-hand knowledge of colonialism in India, and, indeed, is a former professor of Glasgow University, expressed the issue succinctly in a previous debate when he described the UK as a liberal democracy and,
“a beautiful synthesis of English liberalism and the Scottish sense of community and solidarity”.—[Official Report, 30/1/14; col. 1422.]
The First Minister has said:
“Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated”.
He also said:
“Ours is a lucky nation, blessed with natural resources, bright people and a united society. We have an independent education system, legal system and NHS. They are respected worldwide”.
I say “hear, hear” to that. The question I ask Mr Salmond is, “Why divorce?”. Has any of us experienced a painless or good divorce? Absolutely not, so why are we going through this possibly painful experience?
In his poem Mending Wall, the eminent US poet Robert Frost wrote:
“Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence”.
We are all walled in presently but, before we wall some out and perhaps needlessly give offence, we need to converse about our common home—the UK—in order that we continue to walk together rather than walking apart and ensure that on 19 September we will engage as fellow citizens rather than as foreigners.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, there are many achievements of the coalition that are to its credit, but not the Prime Minister’s policy towards Europe and, in particular, his commitment to a referendum in 2017. Its folly was exposed in a debate in this House in January, when we debated the Private Member’s Bill on a referendum. What is the policy and what has been Mr Cameron’s strategy? It is for a major repatriation of powers, which would involve treaty change, and after a new deal had been done that would be submitted to a referendum in 2017. I apologise for repeating some of the arguments made in January, but they were never answered and they are of extreme importance.
In 2017, it would be the referendum year and so not exactly the year in which to conclude a very difficult deal. The process of negotiation was completely ignored: there would first need to be a vote for a convention, then there would have to be a unanimous vote for an intergovernmental conference and anything that it unanimously recommended as a deal would have to be ratified by the different countries, in many cases by a referendum. There is not a cat’s chance in hell of achieving all this within two and a half years of the next election, so what would happen? In March, to his credit, the Prime Minister somewhat modified his aims in an article in the Daily Telegraph in order to avoid a treaty change and some of the difficulties mentioned.
There are two obstacles to his policy now. The first question is whether the Conservative Party, which especially after the next election is likely to be even more anti-European or Europhobe than many of its members are now, would accept the modified proposal and less ambitious aims. Secondly, the timetable problem will not in any way be resolved, because there cannot be a special deal for Britain only. It would have to be a Europe-wide deal. There is no support whatever in any country for a special deal for Britain.
It is true that there are many people who want changes in Europe. The difficulty is that they all want rather different changes. To take one small example, Sweden wants to repeal the ban on chewing tobacco and the restoration of wolves. More seriously, the French want more protection for their agriculture and, generally, not more free trade and they are very set on a social Europe, whereas many people want to modify, for example, the working time directive. The five years it took to secure our budget rebate after hard negotiation would be a doddle compared to getting 28 nations together to agree a new deal for Europe.
Further, the Prime Minister needs allies, because he has a lot of support for some of the things he seeks, and he has consistently made difficulties for allies so that they can hardly support us. He gratuitously alienated the Poles, the Romanians and the Bulgarians, and he has made life very difficult for Angela Merkel because he keeps threatening that if we do not get what we want, we will leave, and more and more voices are being raised in Europe which say, “If you threaten to leave, for God’s sake go. Good riddance”.
What then would be the consequence if there was no deal or only a cosmetic deal of the kind which the Conservative Party after 2015 is unlikely to accept? The result would be that, if there is a Conservative overall majority at the next election, the odds are on exit because if Cameron, despite not having a deal, says he will still recommend that we stay in, the party would replace him with a more Europhobe Prime Minister. If he has changed his mind, as sometimes he has hinted, and would then say we should leave, what would be the result? The odds would then be on exit because you would have an anti-European Government, a stridently hostile anti-European press and a significant UKIP influence. That would be completely different from the situation in 1975, when all three parties were united in favour of staying in, the press was in favour of staying in and there was no mood of poisonous xenophobia created by UKIP.
The issue is not the principle of a referendum, because the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a referendum if there is a major treaty change and a new deal has been reached. Then it should be put to the people because we will know what sort of Europe we are asked to stay in or leave. What I do not understand is why pro-Europeans ignore these arguments. The principle is not that of the referendum but of the question of timing.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Government and the Foreign Secretary deserve to be congratulated for the commitment that they have made to combating violence against women. The House can take real pride in the role that the Minister of State, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, has taken in demonstrating that gender, talent and faith can be great assets while holding high office.
How very different the situation is in Nigeria, where Boko Haram—which means “eradicate western education”—can abduct and kill with impunity. How very different the situation is in Sudan, which incarcerates a woman and sentences her to death on trumped-up charges of adultery and apostasy. How very different the situation is in Pakistan, where a brave and courageous schoolgirl, Malala Yousafzai, was shot for defying the Taliban’s opposition to education for girls; a country disfigured by honour killings, blasphemy laws and impunity in the face of the assassination of its courageous Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, whose killers have still not been brought to justice.
The jihadists, from Boko Haram to Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, hold a common, distorted ideology, which festers in poverty, hates difference and exploits grievance. For majorities, such as women, or for followers of minority faiths, life is often a living hell. Last week, the charity Open Doors said that, today, one Christian is martyred every three hours. On 31 May, the Times, in a powerful leading article, said:
“Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out … We cannot be spectators at this carnage”.
When they are not being murdered, they are being forced to pay extortionate jizya tax—protection money—to leave or to die, like the two men who were recently crucified by ISIS in Syria. I was given an account only today from Syrian refugees who are in Jordan, unable to pay a ransom. The head of the family was kidnapped and executed.
Last night, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord King, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup, Mosul fell to ISIS. Not surprisingly, overnight, 120,000 Christians were reported to have fled from Mosul to the plains of Nineveh. When he comes to reply, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, will tell us what is being done to protect those people who are fleeing from the depredations of ISIS.
I also hope that the noble and learned Lord will update us on the plight of the 276 schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram in April in north-east Nigeria, along with 20 more women abducted this week. I hope that he will also answer the question left partially unanswered yesterday when I raised the case of Meriam Ibrahim, the Sudanese woman sentenced to 100 lashes and execution, and forced to give birth while shackled in her prison cell. I asked if we would unambiguously offer Meriam Ibrahim and her two little ones asylum and refugee status in this country, demonstrating our values against the values of those who have perpetrated what, for me, is the real crime.
Sudan’s archaic, cruel and medieval laws have also led to Intisar Sharif Abdallah being sentenced to death by stoning and to Lubna Hussein being sentenced to lashing for dressing indecently—that is, for wearing trousers. According to Al-Jazeera, in Sudan in one recent year, 43,000 women were publicly flogged. As we have seen in Darfur, where an additional 600,000 IDPs in the past year have brought the number of displaced people to more than 2.2 million, and in the genocidal campaign in South Kordofan, this is a corrupt Government which uses Sharia to prey on the weak and to kill its own people.
Three months ago, Sudan suspended the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross. In April, it expelled a senior official of the United Nations. When did we last raise these questions in the Security Council? This, after all, is a country which signed up to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not worth the paper on which it is written as far as Sudan is concerned. We have to be clear about the implications when a radicalised view of Islam comes to prevail and when democracy, modernity and secularism are seen as spectres—the implications are there of course for the United Kingdom too.
The noble Baroness represents an alternative approach based on plurality, tolerance, decency and common humanity. I have previously argued in your Lordships’ House that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be at the heart of such an approach and, indeed, of our foreign policy, and should inform every aspect of the positions that we strike. The implementation of the declaration should be the goal of our foreign policy and a condition of both aid and support.
I will end with one final example. I have chaired the All-Party Group on North Korea for 10 years. Earlier this year, the United Nations commission of inquiry, chaired by Mr Justice Kirby, said of North Korea:
“The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world”.
If that is so, why have we done nothing so far to ensure that the findings in that commission of inquiry report have been laid before the Security Council?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, the European Union does not help itself by issuing pettifogging regulations on the roundness of oranges or the shape of tomatoes, nor by its burgeoning bureaucracy. For the future, its leadership must mirror its membership. It is not acceptable in the present economic climate—at least in mainland Europe—that the President of the Commission should be without direct experience of a complex, mixed economy. But whoever the leaders of Europe are, they must be sensitive to the recent rise of nationalism, racism and other prejudice.
My sister Renata Calverley’s book, Let Me Tell You a Story, published last year, is her searing recollection of her extraordinary survival as a two to seven year-old child fugitive, hiding from the Nazis in Poland day by day and just about surviving. Families such as ours were more than decimated by the Second World War—by prejudice, totalitarianism and nationalism. However, unlike my sister, I was born after the Second World War, and I have never had to do military service in any form, save as a less than distinguished army cadet at school. I have had over 65 peaceful years—and why is that? It is because—and we should remember this as central to the reasons for having the European Union—the United Kingdom, Germany, France, the Netherlands and now Poland, the country we let down the most in the 1930s, and other countries, are part of the same political organisation. We share and solve issues together and confront nationalism and prejudice. Those are the vials that contain the precious essence of our past and future security. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said earlier, of course we should reform the European Union on its merits. However, we abandon the European Union at our peril and at the risk of European peace and security.
I turn to Iran and Iraq—the register refers to my interests in this connection. Iran has committed more human rights violations this year than ever before. President Rouhani and the theocratic mullahs he serves routinely execute—in public and usually from cranes—people who do no more than I am about to do now: question my own Government’s policy. The mullahs exert sinister and sometimes dominant influence on the disastrously falling Government of Iraq; we read today of terrorists marching towards Baghdad. That has led to the abandonment of any pretence of protection in Iraq for the Iranian opposition resident in Camp Liberty. Murder and deprivation are now regularly imposed upon Camp Liberty, and the state of Iran is behind it.
My point for the Minister is that it is unprincipled and unwise to decouple human rights from nuclear issues in talks with Iran. Iran is a rogue state—we should not forget that. Rouhani is no Gorbachev, though there are some world leaders who appear to believe that he is. Without a clear demonstration of change in their approach to political and religious freedoms, those who rule Iran must not be trusted in any other sphere, including the nuclear. As I said earlier, we abandon Europe at our peril, but in relation to Iran and Iraq we abandon principle at the price of innocent lives.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, it will be immediately evident to your Lordships that I am not the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I am grateful to the noble Earl and the Whips’ Office for accommodating my need to be elsewhere when I would have come up for my original turn on the speakers list.
I am pleased to follow so many powerful speeches urging a stand against barbarism in other parts of the world, and that I am able for once to make a speech that welcomes the course of government policy and action. Two months ago, on 10 April, the International Development Select Committee published its 11th report on disability and development. For too long disability has been overlooked in the UK’s and other countries’ international aid and humanitarian efforts, so I very much welcome the report. Its recommendations are comprehensive and far-reaching and I very much hope that the Government will respond positively to them. This is an opportunity for the UK Government once again to show leadership in the field of international development by supporting people who are frequently the most deprived and marginalised.
I have been heartened to see the lead being given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, Lynne Featherstone, to ensure that disabled people are included in all development programmes being led and funded by DfID. Her announcements on funding the construction of accessible schools only and on taking the lead on addressing the need for more data on disability globally are a most welcome start.
As your Lordships will know, we are at a crucial moment for development as Governments debate a post-2015 development framework to replace the current millennium development goals. I very much welcome the ways in which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for International Development are continuing to champion the call for a transformative shift in post-2015 development whereby no one is left behind by insisting that targets are considered achieved only if they are met for all relevant income and social groups. The prioritisation of disabled people in development programmes is crucial to ending poverty. As the Select Committee says, development goals will remain out of reach unless we urgently step up our work on disability.
I believe that it is essential for the UK as a world leader in development to lead by example in inclusive development, responding positively to the Select Committee’s recommendations and making immediate plans to implement more ambitious disability inclusion. I encourage the Government to continue advocating for this transformative shift as discussions on post-2015 development continue in the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development and at the General Assembly in September.
With the general election on the horizon, I agree with the committee that DfID should move quickly to put in place a cross-cutting disability strategy to ensure that the increased focus on inclusion is embedded for the long term, even as key individuals move on. The strategy should be developed in consultation with disabled people and their representative organisations in lower-income and middle-income countries, and should embrace the principles and commitments contained in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The strategy should be published with clear objectives and timescales, supported by a larger team of specialists and by strong reporting processes at DfID. We have seen clearly with DfID’s important focus on women and girls that a sustained strategic focus by the UK on the most marginalised can have a transformative impact and influence other donors and developing-country Governments.
The Select Committee has recommended that a larger team be put in place with a director-level sponsor, a wider network to champion disability in country offices, basic training for all DfID staff and strong reporting processes to ensure accountability and that the commitment can be sustained even as Governments change and key individuals move on.
As the report recommends, DfID should choose one or two substantial sectors and a small number of countries to focus on initially. Given my work as president of the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment and my role as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Education for All—and I declare an interest in that regard—your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that I urge DfID to prioritise education, given how fundamental education is to poverty reduction and given the leadership position that the UK already has on aid to education. However, this needs to be set out within a long-term timetable, showing how DfID will expand from this focused approach to more sectors and countries in due course to achieve progressively the full inclusion of disabled people in all UK aid programmes.
The report notes that education for disabled children is a complex area and that one size does not necessarily fit all. It recommends that forthcoming guidance on inclusive education should take a nuanced approach. I support this, but also urge the department and Ministers not to let complexity or imperfect data stand in the way of urgently needed action. Great progress can be made for disabled people, even as evidence and approaches are being refined. I therefore urge the Government to accept the International Development Select Committee’s recommendation that DfID should not let imperfect data stand in the way and should set challenging milestones for implementing large-scale programmes and reporting results disaggregated by disability in annual reviews, project completion reviews and logframes.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on the progress that they have made so far to include disabled people within their programmes. I now call on them to take the report of the International Development Select Committee seriously and announce a plan for a disability strategy and a larger team to make provision for inclusive development a reality.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, two grave events have occurred so far this year, the full import of which has not yet been fully appreciated, which threaten in its very foundations the international system with which we have become familiar and have probably taken for granted over the past decades. The Russian annexation of Crimea is the first occasion since the Second World War when frontiers have been changed in Europe by force. It is the first occasion for 50 years that that has occurred anywhere in the world, including outside Europe. I do not need to remind the House of the two occasions when an attempt was made to change frontiers by force, opposed very successfully and bravely by British forces—in the Falklands and, later on, in Kuwait. That is a position that we now face, and we have to ask ourselves what kind of precedent and uncertainties are being created and how the rest of the world will react to these new circumstances and new precedent.
The second grave event is the fact that a British guarantee has been clearly and openly violated—again, apparently, entirely with impunity. We and the United States were both signatories to the 1994 agreement guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, which has clearly been gravely breached by the annexation of Crimea. In this country, we used to take our guarantees extremely seriously. The House will recall that we went to war in August 1914, in accordance with the guarantee that we had given to Belgium under the Treaty of London. We went to war in September 1939, in accordance with the guarantee that we had given to Poland some six months earlier. We have to ask ourselves how seriously we, let alone anyone else, will take British guarantees in future. These are incredibly serious matters.
Of course, I do not suggest that the position created by Mr Putin’s aggression is entirely analogous with that of the outbreak of the two world wars. No historical circumstances are entirely analogous anywhere—that is quite clear. But unlike the Germans in the two world wars and unlike the Soviet Union in the invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, Mr Putin did not just send his tanks or aircraft crudely across the frontier; he used much more subtle means. He displayed his training as a KGB officer, using absolutely brilliantly a mixture of subversion, infiltration and black propaganda. The very close analogy in my view is with the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia in 1938. That was a time when Hitler was still quite cautious before he had become overconfident. He and Henlein were able to subvert Czechoslovakia, again by playing on the nationalism of the German-speaking Sudetens, and on the international sense of guilt about Germany having suffered unduly under the Treaty of Versailles. I had a terrible sense of déjà vu when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord King, talking about how we had not been sympathetic enough to Russia in recent years. Hitler’s 1938 aggression was enormously successful and very subtle, and six months after annexing the Sudetenland, with international acquiescence, he was able to take over Bohemia and Moravia and turn them into a German protectorate—and Slovakia became an independent country.
We are now facing a period of uncertainty in which many people, not just Mr Putin but others as well, will be looking for the weaknesses in the international system—how the rules have changed and how they might get away with what they had previously never considered possible. In other words, the system is under test. Our international system is under probe. The Chinese, who have recently been extraordinarily aggressive with their neighbours, will be watching events extremely carefully and drawing conclusions from all that.
What should we do? We need to do three things. First, we need to decide on the situation that we face, which I have just described. Secondly, we need to take a view on where Mr Putin is going immediately from here. I think that he is likely to want to embed his gains by doing a deal with the West on the basis of the neutralisation of Ukraine. That may be on the analogy of the Austrian state treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, suggested, or perhaps on the analogy of Finland in Cold War days under Presidents Paasikivi and Kekkonen. The neutralisation of Ukraine is not in itself bad, but it would be appalling if it was imposed by the West on Ukraine. What a gruesome and dreadful situation we would find ourselves facing if we in the West accepted that Crimea could exercise the right of self-determination to join Russia but Ukraine could not exercise the right of self-determination democratically to join NATO or the EU if it subsequently wanted to do so. We should not go down that road. Thirdly, we should prepare ourselves for the worst. We should consider imposing effective sanctions. We need to look very carefully at what might happen if we were to impose serious economic sanctions. I have previously suggested sanctions directed at the Russian banks.
We should certainly reverse our cuts in defence spending. In this respect, I totally endorse the powerful case made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord West. We and the rest of the European Union have been disgracefully cutting our defence spending for years while Putin has been increasing his, year by year, by substantial percentages. By doing what we have been doing, we could not have been sending a more effective signal of our abdication. We must reverse that position. We must also support Ukraine concretely. We should provide arms, training and intelligence support. That is enormously important.
We in the European Union need to reduce our energy dependence on Russian natural gas. I am glad that moves have been made in that direction in terms of putting LNG capability in Germany. We need to look again at putting in pipelines to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, without passing through Russia. That will be expensive, but if we and the European Union have to use public funds, that would be a good insurance premium to pay.
Finally—I know that this will be very controversial in the House—this is the moment when we need to make some progress towards a common foreign and defence policy in the European Union. It should be on the basis of every country being committed to spending 2% of its GDP on defence. This needs to be on an EU-wide basis because there are four neutral EU countries that are not members of NATO. We want to get away from the “free rider” issue and the idea that some countries can take their defence for granted. We need to make sure that we do what the Americans have for a long time been calling on us to do: become capable of taking on a greater defence burden ourselves. On that basis, we shall strengthen our solidarity with the United States and increase our credibility in the world, which so badly needs restoring after the events of the past few months.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, the gracious Speech mentioned continuing work on the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons. That is an important but only small part of the nuclear weapons challenge. The gracious Speech was silent on the fact that all the work to go into the next Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which will take place in May 2015, needs to take place this year. The NPT is an opportunity that comes up every five years for the world to take a step away from the abyss. We have heard a lot today about instability and conflagration; that has been painted very vividly in this Chamber. If noble Lords take into account that proliferation is a fact of life as well, they will see that we really need this NPT to succeed.
One of the inadvertent consequences of fixed-term Parliaments for the UK is that, as in 2010, the next conference will fall at election time. The preparations for the 2010 conference were very thorough. The UK went into it with a constructive and active stance, but then political attention was entirely diverted because of the election. There was then a different Government with somewhat different policies—our coalition Government—and there was a change of stance from the UK during the conference. It confused the other countries, which were trying to get somewhere with that 2010 conference. We have to solve that issue before the 2015 conference. I do not have the answers, but the Government and all the political parties here need to come to some consensus on our contribution to the NPT. UK government policy is now to rely more and more on the NPT as the forum where these nuclear issues will be solved.
I attended the UN open-ended working group that Ban Ki-moon called in Geneva. Our ambassador’s absence was a matter of a lot of speculation. People asked me why the UK did not attend. I asked some Parliamentary Questions when I came back and I was told that the UK Government think that the NPT Review Conference is the place for such discussions. I then asked some more questions about why we did not go to Norway or Mexico when those countries hosted two conferences on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. The reply was of course the same: that the forum for such things is the NPT Review Conference. The Government are putting all our eggs in the NPT basket. We owe it to the rest of the world to ensure we have a coherent stance that will carry over from one Government to the next. Earlier in the debate a noble Lord—I am sorry, I cannot remember who—called for more involvement from us in international treaties. This is an absolutely classic case for more involvement.
Earlier, I mentioned increasing proliferation, and I have taken some press from the past couple of weeks. On 4 June this year, there was this from New Delhi:
“India’s first indigenously built nuclear submarine quietly pushed out of its base for sea trials … India will join a club of just six nations with nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles”—
and a doctrinal challenge, as India has always separated the delivery mechanism from weapons. Who knows what will happen now there have been elections: that may not change, but it may. My second bit of press states:
“China has deployed three nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines to a naval base in the South China Sea”.
That was reported on 28 May. These are just intentional actions. If noble Lords were to look at accident reporting, they would see that on 4 June the Daily Telegraph reported a “close to death” situation in a nuclear submarine when the air conditioning failed. We have increasing proliferation and the continual possibility of accidents: as more and more fissile material is used, it is more and more possible to have accidents.
Finally, I refer noble Lords to the European leadership group, some members of which come from this Parliament—indeed, some from your Lordships’ House. That group makes it quite plain just how important this NPT conference is in addressing these matters. Its statement, which came out very recently, underlines that the situation in Ukraine and many of the issues that noble Lords have raised today make nuclear non-use ever more pressing.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to expand further on an issue that I raised last month in an Oral Question: the protection of cultural property in times of conflict. I am grateful to Professor Peter Stone of the International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies at Newcastle University and of Blue Shield for his briefing. Blue Shield, for those who do not know, has nothing to do with American healthcare but is the international organisation concerned with this issue. It has been described as the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross.
We have perhaps a peculiar grouping today, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, pointed out, in which culture is being discussed alongside defence and foreign policy. Nevertheless, for this particular issue, it would be helpful to have the ear not only of the DCMS but of the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID.
It is disappointing that the Government have not pledged to include, as part of their final Session, legislation to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. This parliamentary year would be the perfect time to do this and there was clear support around the House at Question Time last month for it to happen. My understanding is that the Bill drawn up by the previous Administration in 2008 would not need to be changed a great deal and that therefore this would be a relatively simple thing to do.
It is now recognised that there are many reasons—not just the clear one of cultural and artistic importance—for protecting the world’s museums and archaeological and other cultural sites. Such reasons include the social, the humanitarian, a respect for people’s own culture, the economic and, yes, the military as well. It is, for example, increasingly recognised that the protection of culture is a so-called “force multiplier”. It can aid military success. As Peter Stone has pointed out, respecting the living heritage, such as a minaret, may not increase good will but it will not damage it irreparably, which might otherwise be the case. In Syria, the looting which has devastated archaeological sites is also a means by which fighting is financed and therefore prolonged. Protecting culture helps with rebuilding a country in social and economic terms.
In May, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said:
“What is important in practical terms is that our Armed Forces are very conscious of the protocol and the convention, which is why they adhere to what is intended”.—[Official Report, 12/5/14; col. 1652.]
However, it must be emphasised that that in itself is not quite good enough, because what cannot then be done, until the convention is ratified, is for this country, its academics and others to speak out and influence leaders and colleagues across the world with the requisite moral authority, as well as to work with other countries to develop a greater understanding of the problems involved.
In evidence given to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the draft Bill in 2008, Brigadier Gordon Messenger, director of Joint Commitments (Military) at the Ministry of Defence, said:
“I know of no reason why the military would not be anything other than fully supportive of progress towards the Bill and ratification”.
It is my understanding that that position has not changed.
Of course, the criticism can be made that others who have ratified this treaty, such as Iraq, have themselves behaved badly. However, as a world community, it is the only thing we have, and we now appear exceptional internationally in terms of our commitment, or non-commitment—both real and moral—to this principle. Britain is the only significant military power not to have ratified. This is not a good place to be. Peter Stone says that not ratifying,
“leaves the UK isolated internationally and at a significant disadvantage in our aspiration to be a global leader with regard to international humanitarian law. This position undermines our claim to be at the forefront of working for global security and peace”.
Why, after 60 years, has Britain still not ratified? The sense is that, as with all matters cultural, which end up low down in the political pecking order, it has simply neglected to do so. It is high time that the Government put this right. Continuing conflict and indeed unfolding events give an urgency to this. I hope that the DCMS takes a lead on this issue and presses for parliamentary time to be made available so that the convention can be ratified as soon as possible.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, altering the rhythm of this debate once more, I want to speak on constitutional affairs—or, rather, to discuss what I see to be a threat to our constitution. I have heard it suggested sometimes that the British public have only limited understanding of the great issues that affect their daily lives. Even in your Lordships’ House, I have heard speeches that only just stop short of implying much the same thing. A number of European officials are on record as being openly contemptuous of voter intelligence and dismissive of their aspirations. A view has plainly taken hold that the lack of “demos” within the European Union contributes to the displeasure that has been increasingly directed at the political class, and notably so in recent weeks.
If my life’s experience has taught me one thing, and it applies to all organisations large and small, where accountability is absent or weak even, it is that you can expect trouble as sure as night follows day. The consequences of failures in accountability include incompetence, unfairness, waste and fraud. Some or all of these consequences are not just a danger, they are an inevitability. While I would agree wholeheartedly with those who believe that a significant element of public anger stems from the shortcomings and the undemocratic and unaccountable nature of today’s EU, there is also a compelling case that we should look closer to home to find the genesis of much of the public’s disquiet.
When the measures to update the electoral register were sabotaged as retribution for Parliament having failed to support House of Lords reform, some people may well have derived satisfaction from the thought that they had damaged my party. Never mind my party, whatever the motive, the effect of that action was to swindle the voters who in consequence will have to participate in next year’s general election using an old and out-of-date register. I find it hard to imagine a more unforgivably cynical or self-serving ploy. Nowadays, it looks as if the public share that view.
However, that misses another point. It may well be that your Lordships’ House could be improved and I am sure that it could. But at least it works, and I hear very little public demand to suggest that its reform should be a top priority. Where I sense many people feel an urgent need for reform is in the conduct of another place. Consider the continued and relentless use of programming and guillotine Motions in the other place, and the growing perception that House of Commons debates are irrelevant even when the subject matter is of huge public interest. The public see sparsely attended events where a handful of MPs, increasingly with little or no experience of the real world, often are seen reading from briefs prepared by lobbyists and who have vested interests.
Well within my memory, there was a substantial body of Members of the other place who were content to be and to remain respected Back-Benchers. This respect derived in large part from the fact that Back-Bench MPs really did hold the Executive to account. With new entrants today expecting almost immediate preferment, the party Whips enjoy a power that makes a mockery of the concept of MPs holding Ministers to account.
I have always held the view that the overwhelming majority of people who enter public life do so for honourable reasons. Very often things go wrong not because of bad intent but as a consequence of a collective failure to uphold the concept of accountability. I want to point to the apparent reluctance of modern Governments to reflect more than they do on the uses and misuses of power. The fact that Governments should have, and need to have, authority should not blind them to the fact that they govern by consent. Consent is not limited to what voters decide at election time. It needs to be sustained through day-to-day accountability. This weakness, in terms of accountability, spreads through all our institutions and all aspects of our national life. A senior figure in the BBC recently told me that no one knew how decisions were reached in his organisation. The same want of accountability is to be found in the huge array of quangos and monopolistic utility companies. It has led to atrocious service and an arrogant disregard for people’s needs and aspirations. Many of our corporate giants are patently unaccountable to their shareholders as well as frequently the enemy of small business. I was very pleased to see measures contained in the gracious Speech to curb some of their excesses.
Of course, no one conspires to govern badly but we must all take some responsibility when good policy surrenders to meretricious soundbites, personal integrity is at such a premium in public life and such a huge proportion of decision-making is ceded away to distant institutions without the consent of the people whose lives those decisions affect. I commend the coalition Government for the measures outlined in the gracious Speech and they will have my support. However, I hope the Government will reflect in the year that remains to them on the issues that probably cannot be remedied through the legislative programme alone. They need to react to the perception that power continues to be centralised and that we are governed less and less by people who enjoy popular support and more and more by new oligarchies both public and private.
We most surely need to understand that the recent election results were not uniform across Europe. We in Britain did not give encouragement to the National Front or any other extremist party. The public reminded us that we in these islands have a 2,000 year-old inherited settlement, unique to the English-speaking world, under which the freedom of the individual is better protected that anywhere else on earth, where government is servant not master. People believe that the often ancient institutions devised to protect them from unaccountable power are being compromised and weakened. There will be a heavy price to pay if their message is ignored.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. I do not agree with everything he said, but people’s suspicion of experts is something that I know about from my time running the Met Office. I shall focus my remarks on a very significant point towards the end of the Queen’s Speech regarding the Government’s continuing support for measures to deal with climate change. I want to make a point about how such action should relate to other programmes to do with the environment and its effect on people.
The present position is that there is an upward trend in global warming which is now predicted to exceed 4 degrees over the land areas of the world and continue to produce very considerable effects in terms of disasters such as cyclones, droughts and heat waves. One can see this in many countries. The number of deaths, for example, in natural disasters per year is of the order of 100,000. As for other environmental factors in the world—matters such as air pollution—the World Health Organisation estimates deaths from these will exceed 1.5 million people per year.
Even more serious now is that air pollution affects the youngest of children in Asian cities. There was a rather famous Chinese young lady who lived on the crossroads near Beijing and died of lung cancer. This country is concerned with lung cancer and smoking, but that is a voluntary disease. When children face that kind of situation, it is something that we have to consider. The fact is that there are connections between these natural and human disasters which are worsening as a result of the effects of climate change. One of the effects is to produce longer periods of static wind or conditions such as very high or very low temperatures. There is much evidence to that effect.
One of the other features of the Queen’s Speech is that the Government are continuing their programme of investment in low-carbon power, including nuclear power. I commend the Government on moving ahead on nuclear power and these other programmes. I would point out again that it is important to have an overall system of both nuclear and non-nuclear power because there are periods—as commented on in Germany this winter, and in this House in 2010—when the wind stops, the clouds appear and back-up sources of power are needed.
The UK is working within the international community to minimise climate-related threats. As this debate is focused on international work, I should comment on how we and other countries work with the United Nations agencies and monitor that work. The UK contributes significantly in terms of both finance and expertise to the UN agencies, including the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme and the programme for climate change. A worrying point made to me recently by a World Bank official was that although the UK is the second-largest contributor to the World Bank, we have a very much smaller number of experts there than other countries do. As the Germans have large numbers of experts there, what happens when a question on, for example, an urban railway arises? Lo and behold, the World Bank will support a big project proposed by Siemens. Equally, however—as the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out—the UK has great expertise in education, science and business, and it is important that we should have the right number of people there to make our contribution. I also support the noble Lord’s remarks on disability and environmental hazards. Many disabled people are particularly vulnerable, for example in floods in cities.
Next year there will be the regular 10-yearly United Nations international disaster reduction meeting. This will take place in Japan and should lead to further scientific and technical improvements. The UK plays a very important role through our insurance industry. Equally, however, we have to use our expertise to provide warnings to communities which might suffer badly.
I feel that progress on some scientific issues is moving rather slowly. It has always been said in the West, and in the United States, that earthquakes are impossible to predict. We heard in a seminar in London that the Russians have two or three institutes that are doing remarkable work in this respect. Earthquakes are now regularly being caused by fracking. The United States Geological Survey—not a very left-wing organisation—has commented that the number of earthquakes in Oklahoma has increased by 300% at the sixth level on the Richter scale. We should consider this at the United Nations meeting. We should also consider—the issue has been raised in debates in this House—the social and economic consequences of natural disasters.
This year and next year will be important for building on the commitment on climate change made at Durban. The targets for the reduction of carbon emissions should be agreed at the meeting in Paris in 2015, with a view to all countries finally agreeing and implementing them by 2020. It is remarkable that at Durban the Chinese agreed to this, and we are expecting Chinese participation.
At the most recent meeting of legislators—in Mexico City this week, which I attended—it was interesting to hear Governments and their delegates expressing their belief that it is important to demonstrate more visibly their commitment to urgently tackling climate change, sometimes through simple means. One example, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, is the use of smart meters in cars to indicate the level of their carbon emissions; or, as in France, to inform drivers on motorways that driving at high speeds is not only dangerous but causes higher carbon-emission levels. I have had no joy in talking to the Department for Transport in this country. It would be progress if people could be shown that they add to the carbon in the atmosphere when they drive fast on motorways.
The recent IPCC report on the social and economic impact of climate change now recommends that national and international policies on carbon reduction should be connected to policies covering the environmental benefits of tackling it—I have mentioned air pollution—as well as the benefits in terms of reducing poverty and vulnerability more generally. Security is also important. The Pentagon takes a strong view on this, to the fury of Republicans in the United States.
There is also the question of the preservation of biodiversity. A number of economists, some of whom are distinguished Members of this House, have the strange idea that we can put off dealing with climate change for decade after decade because—according to their strange calculations—it will become cheaper and cheaper to deal with. In the mean time, however, we are losing biodiversity.
If we are to have an integrated approach it is important that we consider all these factors together. That will be a challenge for the Government. From my time in the Met Office I know that we need to have an integrated approach through international bodies, Governments and civil societies. These integrated measures must first be formulated—universities can play a role in that—and then implemented and then, finally, reviewed by Parliament. In the 14 years that I have been a Member of this House we have had two debates on the United Nations agencies, and I led both of them. It is important that we should review this development and I hope that the Government will support it.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, in last year’s debate on the Queen’s Speech I spoke about the situation in Cyprus. I thought we were then looking at the most favourable prospects for reunification that we had yet seen and I called upon the Government to increase their involvement. A year later, my cautious optimism seems not to have been entirely misplaced. Detailed negotiations are under way. The FCO has been very active and deserves congratulations for that. It has continued its informal dialogues with the diasporas, talked to civil society organisations and taken the bold step of inviting the Turkish Cypriot leader and his negotiator to London. This is the first time that Turkish Cypriots have been invited formally to London and it is a welcome step. None of this means, of course, that negotiations will be easy or successful.
On Monday, I attended a lecture at the LSE given by Dr Kudret Özersay, the Turkish Cypriot chief negotiator. Dr Özersay was frank about the difficulties but he was cautiously optimistic. He made a compelling point about the conditions for success. Clearly, the first condition is the production of a federal, bi-zonal, bi-communal plan acceptable to the political leaderships of both sides. However, if this plan is to gain popular approval in a referendum on both sides, it must pass one other test. Will acceptance of the plan produce a better state of affairs for the people of the north and the south, or, as Dr Özersay put it, will both sides recognise the harm to them involved in rejection of the plan? This was clearly not the case for the Greek Cypriots with the Annan plan.
The international community has a role to play here, especially the guarantor states and the EU. We cannot and should not intrude upon the negotiations—any solution has to be by Cypriots for Cypriots—but we can encourage and help make clear the benefits of reunification. Britain and the EU here have an opportunity to redeem past mistakes—Britain for allowing the divided island to join the EU in the first place; and the EU for the post-accession broken promises that it made to the north.
The situation in the eastern Mediterranean grows increasingly unstable and dangerous and the BBC is reporting that ISIS is now fighting for Tikrit after taking Mosul. This growing instability is a reminder that we need a Cyprus settlement this time around—not only because failure will undoubtedly provoke a deepening and hardening of the divisions on the island but because, regrettably, the behaviour of Turkey is becoming more worrying.
Turkey’s stability and orientation are vitally important to NATO and to the interests of the West in general. Turkey’s development has been hugely impressive: from authoritarian, agrarian and poor to democratic, industrial and relatively wealthy, but inclining once again towards authoritarianism. There is a sad record of imprisonment of journalists, of restrictions on the freedom of speech and of executive interference with the police and the judiciary. There is the danger of a deepening division between the secular west and the pious Anatolian heartlands. This is greatly to Turkey’s disadvantage, not only in its relations with the West but economically.
Admiration of western values has long been a driving force in Turkey, both politically and culturally. However, unfortunately, the attraction of the West and of the EU has declined significantly in recent years. Prime Minister Erdogan’s then chief adviser, Yigit Bulut, recently called the EU,
“a loser, headed for wholesale collapse”.
Turkey’s last EU Minister and chief negotiator said:
“Turkey doesn’t need the EU. The EU needs Turkey. If we had to, we could tell them ‘Get lost, kid’”.
All this is bad news for the EU, for the West and for Turkey. Our influence has been allowed to wane.
Given the public hostility of France and Germany and the long delays in the accession negotiations, it is no wonder that many Turks no longer see the prospect of EU membership as either realistic or desirable. This is a cause for concern. The West needs Turkey as a friend and an ally. Her Majesty’s Government have always understood that, while others have not. We are currently engaged in persuading our EU partners of the merits of reform, and the merits of Turkish accession may not sit easily alongside these discussion. Nevertheless, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to persist in their strong advocacy of Turkish accession. Europe will be weaker and more vulnerable without it.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the gracious Speech mentioned Iran and Afghanistan. I would like to speak briefly about India, Pakistan and Kashmir, the DfID money for education in Pakistan, and the money given to MKRF, a charity that is linked to the media group, Geo TV, which has given substantial amounts to its own company.
I congratulate the Indian people on the successful democratic elections. I remind the House that when the newly elected Prime Minister of India, Mr Narendra Modi, was serving as the chief minister of Gujarat, thousands of Muslims were killed, including two British citizens from Batley in west Yorkshire. I want to make three points about what concerns me most in relation to the BJP manifesto. The BJP, supported by parties such as the RSS, has declared that it will build a Hindu temple on the land where the Babri Mosque stood and was then demolished. I fear that this will cause riots and bloodshed again.
My second point is made as a British citizen of Kashmiri origin. The BJP has committed to abolishing Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which gives special status to Kashmir due to the commitments made by India to the United Nations Security Council that a free, fair and impartial plebiscite would be held. The BJP’s manifesto commitment to abolish Article 370 is a clear provocation against the rights of the Kashmiri people that will result in further bloodshed, tension along the line of control, and possible threats of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. More than 100,000 people have already been killed and tens of thousands of women have been raped. This morning the noble Baroness spoke about the international conference being held in London this week regarding sexual violence as a tool of humiliation in war zones. I therefore ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they would support an independent inquiry into rape in Indian-administered Kashmir since 1997. Thousands of youths have been killed in fake encounters and extrajudicial actions, many of which have been listed by the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-administered Kashmir in a report about unmarked graves.
My third point is that before the elections, Prime Minister Modi stated that if the United States can enter Pakistani territory to kill Osama bin Laden, India also has the right to go into Pakistani territory to pursue those who are allegedly responsible for attacks on Indian soil.
I welcome Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to India for the oath-taking ceremony of Mr Modi. It was also good to see the exchange of gifts for the mothers of both the Indian and the Pakistani prime ministers. However, those gifts should be extended to the mothers of the thousands of Kashmiri martyrs and the mothers of Pakistani and Indian soldiers on the settlement of the Kashmir issue, as well as all the other issues which include water, borders, fishing and line of control disputes.
My final point is in regard to DfID’s programme in Pakistan. I thank the research team in the House of Lords for providing the latest information, and I thank the British Government and the British people for constructing, since 2009, more than 20,000 classrooms, training 45,000 teachers and helping some 400,000 girls to go school. I also thank them for aiming to train, by 2020, 100,000 community midwives, constructing or renovating more than 70 midwife schools, and providing legal aid and counselling for 35,000 women victims of violence.
No other country in the world has lost more soldiers and police officers than Pakistan, and its economy has lost more than $70 billion due to the war in Afghanistan and terrorism in Pakistan. Providing food, medicine and financial support for 315,000 women from the poorest families and jobs for tens of thousands of people is much appreciated while Pakistan tries to recover from these terrible times. However, I have some deep concerns related to money that has been allocated for the educational awareness programme of the not-for-profit organisation, MKRF. Members of the same family are the owners of Geo TV, which is currently suspended in Pakistan because of the allegations made against the Pakistan intelligence services and the army. I want to ask why money has been given to this charity, which is directly linked to a business that is the beneficiary of DfID money. What was the business proposal and why was the grant money not subject to competition rules? I have put down Written Questions and I have asked the Chairman of Committees, but I have yet to receive any answers. Finally, more than 100 police cases have been registered against the owner of this media group and a warrant of arrest has been issued against him. Will the funding still continue?
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, the gracious Speech referred to Northern Ireland in these words. The Government would continue,
“to promote reconciliation and create a shared future”.
In reflecting on those words, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the Consultative Group on the Past, which reported to the House in 2009. Few would dissociate themselves from those sentiments in the Queen’s Speech, but I want briefly to emphasise some of the reality which stands in the way of their achievement. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, reminded noble Lords, trust can so easily be destroyed, and of course we can refer to the recent dealing with on-the-runs.
Next September, we will mark the 20th anniversary of the ceasefires declared by the republican and loyalist paramilitaries. I speak as one of the two observers of the destruction of loyalist arms. In these two decades, the people of Northern Ireland have experienced the ups and downs of a devolved Administration. Local political life has undertaken responsibility, and in the main has shown a willingness to learn the lessons of devolved answerability for everyday life and affairs. Much of everyday life today reflects normality, but there remain issues which have the potential to drive us back into the darkness of the past—and none of them more important than how we deal with that past. That is part of the reality which confronts the idealism of the words in the gracious Speech.
Northern Ireland’s “peace” has been portrayed beyond the Province as something achieved and an end to our problems. Much of the world has moved on as though it is “all over” and stability is an achieved fact. But I ask the House, and particularly the Government, to recognise the reality: the reconciliation and truly shared future envisaged are still very much “business in progress”. The truth is that a simplistic conclusion that success has already been achieved is hurtful and insulting to those who have been injured or bereaved in the Troubles. Such a conclusion has been used to justify ignoring the legacy of the past and the demands of victims and their families. There is a perception that Westminster has accepted the “success” version of events as a reason to somehow remove itself from real involvement in addressing the legacy of the past. Until there is an agreed method of dealing with the past, inquiries, coroners’ courts, investigative journalism and the courts will continue to produce obstacles to the achievement of a real and genuine shared future. Those obstacles call for courage and a new way of thinking.
The report of the Consultative Group on the Past followed a countrywide listening process with the proposal of a legal commission which would combine the principles of investigation, storytelling and reconciliation. We rejected the idea of a truth commission, as in South Africa, and we ruled out a general amnesty. But we did propose a legacy commission that, within a set frame of time, would deal with the past in an effective manner. That proposal has found favour in the Haass proposals, the work of Amnesty International, the Victims’ Commissioner and many international investigative reports since 2009.
The proposals were not perfect—we never claimed that they would be—but they combined to provide a way that could be a basis for the future. Until some way is found and agreed, the pain of the past will continue to blight too many lives and will mean that the future hope of a shared community will remain a dream.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. He has served his people of Northern Ireland with commitment, distinction and courage over many years, and what he said tonight is no exception. We all need to listen carefully.
Like others, I welcome the Minister’s reference to the summit taking place in London today, and I very much endorse the gladness of my own noble friend Lady Morgan about it. In the long run, our leadership on this issue will depend on the effectiveness with which we handle these issues internally in our own lives and in the areas of the world for which we are responsible. We cannot separate the rhetoric from the performance. Our credibility stands on our own performance, and that applies equally when the Government speak so powerfully—as they have today and as they do repeatedly, with our present Foreign Secretary—about the importance of human rights.
I take second place to nobody in stressing the importance of human rights but, again, the world looks at us and makes a distinction between the rhetoric and the reality. That is why we have to be absolutely committed in all we do—whatever the provocations, however severe or acute they are—to the application of human rights in our affairs and in the affairs for which we are responsible. This is not a burden, as those who drew up the universal declaration in the aftermath of the Second World War understood. Human rights are the cornerstone—the foundation—of security and peace in the world. It is not an oversimplification to say that where there is an absence of human rights, there will always be a danger of alienation, extremism, terror and the rest. Where a very widely operational atmosphere of human rights is applied and fulfilled, there will be very little room for the extremists to recruit.
We live in the midst of a paradox, which this debate has underlined very strongly. On the one hand, we live in a time when the reality of global interdependence has never been more evident. It is true in economic affairs; it is true in trade affairs; it is certainly true in the issues of global warming and climate change; it is true in health; it is true of almost every major issue with which government is confronted. It is difficult to think of any of the issues facing our children and grandchildren that will be resolved within the context of the nation state alone. All will require international co-operation.
Yet we see this new unpleasant reality of political alienation. We cannot bury this and pretend it does not exist. It is there. It is not simply those who vote for less pleasant, extreme parties; it is the very large number of people who do not vote at all and who could become their prey. For that reason, we must recognise that, in the age of globalisation, people feel threatened and insignificant and that they have no strategic influence on their lives. We must understand that if we are to build peace and security, it is essential to recognise the importance of identity, not to deny it—and that involves cultural identity, not just political identity—and then to have the courage and imagination of leadership to enable people to see that in the confidence of their identity they must move forward to co-operation. We must all move forward to co-operation because of what I said in my opening remarks: all the issues that face us necessitate effective international co-operative approaches.
That must also be true in our institutions, certainly as we talk of the reform of the European Union. We have to go back to first principles and recognise that there was a very real debate at the beginning about the virtues of confederalism and federalism. Perhaps what we have learnt in history is that there is a great deal to be said for the confederal approach, whereby you build within the institutions of the European Union the shared commitment and the co-operation necessary to deliver effective policies—not to impose authoritatively and administratively a whole range of policies without those having been debated among the countries and therefore becoming seen as real issues among the people of the individual countries.
It is also perhaps true that we should look at the issues of federation in the context of our own society. I will make only this point about the Scottish issue. I am a half-Scot so I am very much exposed to the debates within my own family. I am very proud of my Scottish blood. If we get a no vote in the referendum, let us not be fooled into thinking that the issue will go away. It will not go away. I do not want to be dispiriting but there is always a danger of that debate turning nasty. In that context, we have to start talking much more imaginatively about different structures for the United Kingdom. We should have done it long ago. I think that we will have a strong future as the United Kingdom if we have a federal United Kingdom in the long run because that is the logic of everything we are trying to do by fiddling here and there—more economic powers for Scotland here, more powers for Wales there. The logic is to get on with building a strong federation in which each part of our United Kingdom can co-operate freely in the common interest.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank (LD)
My Lords, sandwiched between matters of life and death, I dare to mention culture and to address the future of English Heritage. I certainly do not require my noble friend to genuflect to my remarks but I hope that the appropriate Minister will reply by letter reasonably promptly.
Today’s occasion was provoked by a letter I received on 3 July last from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, in her capacity as the chair of English Heritage. At that time I was unaware of her impending departure from that role and I am very sorry that she has gone. But the issues I wish to explore are not personal.
When I first knew the sites of English Heritage in the 1950s, they were marked by the characteristic green cast iron notices of the Ministry of Works dating from the Ancient Monuments Act 1913. More recently, I have visited Eltham Palace—which is not a palace at all—I expect to visit Audley End next weekend, and I walk from my home in Highgate to Kenwood almost every week. I am pleased by the rehabilitation of Kenwood House, apparently at a cost of £6 million—although, it seems, not wholly from the grant in aid but from the Iveagh bequest. Perhaps in due course Ministers will confirm that. At last there is a suitable visitor centre at Stonehenge.
Such developments and the growth of the membership to more than 700,000 have left both Houses mostly silent. But the letter sent to Members of the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, invited comment on important issues. The pretext of the noble Baroness’s letter was the outcome of the latest spending review. It said that English Heritage was “delighted” that the Government would provide a one-off sum of £80 million to invest in repairs and enhancement in properties. The letter continued to say that English Heritage would work with the Government,
“to consult on establishing a charity which will in future care for the historic properties”.
It added:
“In due course, the charity will become self-funding, no longer requiring direct funding by the tax payer”.
In my reply to the letter, I said that I was alarmed that it seemed to me to be a proposal of privatisation. As for £80 million being generous, it was not much given to support 420 sites spread over what seemed to be eight years. I added that:
“I am deeply sceptical about self-funding if the standards of English Heritage are to be maintained”.
In due course, last December, the department published a consultation document. The consultation took place over two months over the winter, but I am not aware that there was any opportunity to debate the proposals in the House.
I now recognise that privatisation was a loose and misleading characterisation, given that there is no intention to sell any properties, but if there is to be no funding from the taxpayer and income comes from membership, donors, sponsors and commercial activities, the character will change.
What will the role of the culture and media department be in this respect? Will it appoint the chair of both the new charity and the new Historic England? Who will be the chair of Historic England: an academic or another businessman? What will be the balance of responsibility, status and authority between the two bodies, and who will appoint the trustees of the charity?
The key decision is to bring public spending to an end. On the face of it, it is far from clear that two bodies will not cost more than one. In my early years, I cannot remember any admission charges to sites, but there now seems to be a charge in 114. Which of the bodies will now decide to make or raise the charges for visitors to the site? In particular, can Ministers confirm that there is no proposal to negotiate any variation in the terms of the Iveagh bequest, by which admission to Kenwood is free?
I have made it clear that I remain seriously uneasy about those major proposed changes. When the department has reached its conclusions, I hope that Ministers will make a full statement to Parliament, allowing time before anything is to be finally settled.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, after the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, I return to matters of life and death. Does the Minister share my concern about how interpretation of human rights legislation—I stress the word “interpretation”—has impacted or may impact on the actions or behaviour of the Armed Forces? Does he agree that it threatens, even erodes, the ethos of trust and mutual support that forms the bedrock of discipline and all activity in the three services? The Armed Forces Acts have laid down a litany of what constitutes a service crime or misdemeanour. Behaviour of all in the services are bound by that legislation.
The statutory quinquennial revision and renewal of those Acts are used to ensure that they were relevant to and remained in step with inevitable changes in social and societal behaviour and other perceptions of the day, but they do not directly deal with human rights. The Armed Forces and human rights legislation are potentially incompatible. Only service men and women effectively contract with the state to make the ultimate sacrifice, backed by the Armed Forces Acts to enforce discipline and obedience.
How does that mesh with Article 2, the right to life, under human rights legislation? In 1998, in concert with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I spoke to amendments to exclude the Armed Forces from the Human Rights Bill, on the grounds that it would be preferable that aspects of human rights conventions be enacted within the Armed Forces Acts. At Third Reading, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to reassure the House. He said:
“I urge your Lordships to be of the view that the convention is a flexible instrument. It poses no threat to the effectiveness of the Armed Forces”.—[Official Report, 5/2/98; col. 768.]
Since then, numerous cases against the MoD have been brought under that Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor’s reassurances have been frittered away—most spectacularly by the Supreme Court findings last June.
The cardinal point for me in that ruling was that it was far from unanimous; three of the seven judges dissented. In their minority view, they stated that,
“the approach taken by the majority will make extensive litigation almost inevitable after, as well as quite possibly during and even before, any active service operations undertaken by the British army. It is likely to lead to the judicialisation of war”.
Is that not a wake-up call? A position of absolute legal clarity on the field of battle for forces stationed overseas, or even on home soil, does not exist.
That is the last thing that servicemen and their commanders want to hear. They expect to and should want to deal in absolutes: is it right or wrong; is it legal or is it not; am I covered or am I not? Nuanced findings and the plethora of cases dealt with or being dealt with by the MoD over the past decade or so can but create confusion, muddle and uncertainty.
I will quote verbatim the majority finding of the Supreme Court because it is very important. It stated:
“It will be easy to find that allegations are beyond the reach of article 2 if the decisions that were or ought to have been taken about training, procurement or the conduct of operations were at a high level of command and closely linked to the exercise of political judgment and issues of policy. So too if they relate to things done or not done when those who might be thought to be responsible for avoiding the risk of death or injury to others were actively engaged in direct contact with the enemy. But finding whether there is room for claims to be brought in the middle ground, so that the wide margin of appreciation which must be given to the authorities or to those actively engaged in armed conflict is fully recognised without depriving the article of content, is much more difficult. No hard and fast rules can be laid down. It will require the exercise of judgment. This can only be done in the light of the facts of each case”.
So no prior certainty there for the Armed Forces in the wide field that lies in that middle ground.
As is clear from the number of cases faced by the MoD in recent years—some settled out of court; others being challenged by the MoD in the courts—there is a plethora of claims in this middle ground. The Supreme Court finding can only embolden more to be made.
I believe that the time has come for that minority view of the Supreme Court that war cannot be controlled or conducted by judicial tribunals to be reflected in new legislation that will not countenance it for the Armed Forces.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the Association of Military Court Advocates, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and tell him that we shall be addressing the issues at an international seminar at Yale University in the autumn.
I may be from Wales, but it so happens that my four children would be, under Mr Salmond’s plan for Scottish independence, entitled to Scottish passports—although not, it seems, my grandsons Angus, Finlay and Murray.
My family’s links with Scotland derive from coal mining and two mining communities, one in north Wales and the other being the West Lothian coal field. My late father-in-law, who trained at the Polkemmet mine near Whitburn, came to manage Gresford colliery in Wales, among others. At that time, it was still recovering from the dreadful disaster of 1934 in which 266 Welsh miners lost their lives underground. That terrible event drew miners together: the hymn tune “Gresford” became “the Miners’ Hymn”, played by colliery bands in Wales, Scotland, Durham and the north-east, Cumbria, Nottinghamshire and Kent.
Nobody in Gresford claimed the coal for Wales. Nobody in Fauldhouse claimed the coal for Scotland. The people of Britain—drawn together by hardship and adversity, by lost lives in the Great Wars, by poverty and privation—struggled to pool their natural resources and talents to build together a modern liberal country, in which citizens are guaranteed equal social and economic rights. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, set out those rights in his excellent speech this morning, so I will not repeat them.
While this struggle was happening, nationalism was an irrelevance. Saunders Lewis and the Reverend Valentine, founders in 1925 of the Plaid Genedlaethol Cymru, the Welsh National Party, thought it right to set fire to an RAF training camp and aerodrome in the Llyn peninsula just before the Second World War. They ensured that the official policy of their party to that war was neutrality. Neutrality was also advocated by Douglas Young, the then leader of the SNP, which was founded in 1934. They all ended up in prison. A later generation has sought to give nationalism in both countries a more respectable face, but the central aim of independence remains. Why do nationalists wish to break up the common venture of the United Kingdom? Why is devolution, which surely enhances the distinctive identities and cultures of our different peoples but keeps us together, not enough?
What nationalism has succeeded in doing is create tensions within and between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom as to who gets what and what is fair. Nationalism complains about Westminster government and of domination by London. It resents the English, yet there is now increasing discontent in England over Scotland’s share of public spending. There is a perception in England that additional funding enables the Scots—and the Welsh—to enjoy popular policies, for example on tuition fees, which are not available to the English. There is indeed a political question to be resolved which has no mention in the gracious Speech, no doubt because of the imminent Scottish referendum.
In the end, it comes down to the Barnett formula. Under that formula, the amount spent on public services in Scotland is much more per capita than is spent in England and significantly greater than in Wales. The position as between Scotland and Wales would be reversed if the Barnett formula were replaced by funding based on the actual needs of the people, as the Lords Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Richard, rightly pointed out in 2009. We have a splendid paradox: Mr Salmond warns the Scots that a no vote means abolition of the Barnett formula and the removal of their mother’s milk but, on the other hand, the Welsh Labour Government say that Barnett must go. The people of Wales may not vote for or against the tax-raising powers that we shall soon be debating in the Wales Bill unless Barnett is replaced.
What devolution must be about is the use of all the resources of these islands to support and develop those areas of the United Kingdom that are most in need—to spread the load, to ensure equality and opportunity and to relieve poverty whether in Wales, Scotland or those areas of England and Northern Ireland where the old industrial or rural economy has collapsed. We stand together. We build together, as we always have. When this referendum is out of the way, all of us, whether Scots, Welsh, English, Irish or a mixture of all or any, have serious business to do.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, although he will not be surprised that I do not agree with a large amount of what he said. Had he been speaking 100 years ago, I wonder whether he would have applied the same logic to the position of southern Ireland and its quest for independence.
It is the constitutional aspects of the Queen’s Speech which I wish to address today. There are three issues in ascending immediacy. The first is Europe and the need to find a method of confirming the UK’s ongoing EU membership in the wake of the unsettling effect of the UKIP vote in the European Parliament elections and the pressing need to remove the uncertainty which, if allowed to rumble on, will undermine our economic recovery. I warmed to the passion brought to this matter by the noble Lords, Lord Ashdown and Lord Alderdice.
Secondly, we have before this House the Wales Bill, which has been carried over. I want to flag up my intention of seeking to amend that Bill to respond to developments since the Bill was introduced in another place. In particular, there is the willingness of the Government to consider even further taxation devolution to Scotland—the very issue which they refused to accept in the Welsh context, despite the recommendations of the Silk report; namely, the ability of devolved Administrations to vary income tax without being tied into a lock-step principle.
However, the most immediate issue is the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence, which will have huge consequences whatever the outcome. I sometimes think that some noble colleagues in this Chamber—although I most certainly exempt the noble Lord, Lord Judd, from this charge—believe that if there is a no vote, everything continues as the status quo without any change whatever. If that is the intention of Government, they should make it clear; and if it is not, they should spell out what they see as the alternative options to a yes vote and how that would affect Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, England.
It is of course a matter for the people of Scotland, and the people of Scotland alone, to make the decision on independence. I warmly welcome the fact that the UK Government have accepted this approach. A small group of us, from both Houses, visited Barcelona last month at the invitation of the Catalan Government—I have registered my interest—and we learnt of the aspirations of the Catalan people to have a similar independence referendum. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that Catalan leaders looked with considerable envy at the approach agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments in regard to holding a referendum and abiding by the decision of the Scottish people. I am happy to associate myself with such sentiments. The fact that successive Governments at Westminster have recognised that the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh people are free to take such a decision is immensely to the credit of the UK. I salute the leaders of all parties who, over the past 25 years, have adapted the UK’s unwritten constitution to accept the national right to self-determination of our respective national communities.
While I suspect that I could carry most of the House with me on that aspect of the constitutional issue, I know that I shall not be able to do so in regard to my next comments. If I were a Scot, I would most certainly be voting yes in the referendum. I would be doing so to establish a new partnership of equals among the nations of these islands. I would be doing so to accept the full responsibility of self-government, which has been accepted by 193 countries around the world and by 28 member states of the EU, 16 of which have a population of fewer than 10 million. I would ask myself, in comparison to those countries, why should Scotland’s voice be attenuated by having to pass through a London filter? I would ask myself how I would look my grandchildren in the eye if I had spurned the first opportunity in 300 years to take on the full responsibility of self-government.
I remember the first time that I canvassed for Plaid Cymru in the south Wales coalfield valleys, back in 1967—this links up to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I struck up a debate with a group of retired miners outside a Rhondda pub. On the issue of self-government, they said: “Boi bach, you’re 50 years too late. If we’d gone for it then, it might have worked but by now the coal is finished”. If Scotland were to fail to rise to the historic opportunity it has in September, I wonder whether in 50 years’ time there will be Scots saying: “We might have made a go of it 50 years ago, when the oil was still flowing”.
Whatever the result of the referendum, I hope that that it will be technically recognised as valid by all sides and that everyone resolves to get the best outcome for all—and that may mean some compromise. I hope that when we debate the issue in a couple of weeks’ time, the Government will be forthcoming on how they will deal with the consequences of Scotland’s vote, whichever way it may go, and that if they have a plan they will take both Houses and all four nations into their confidence as to what it is and how it will be made to work.
Lord Selsdon (Con)
This is perhaps one of the few occasions during my time in this House when I feel confused. A couple of hours ago, I snapped a tooth off and it was repaired very quickly. Therefore, I may appear a little gaga. However, I would like to ask the Government some questions.
I begin by saying that the world is round, the earth is flat and in the middle of the world is Greenwich. The United Kingdom is in the centre of the world, so some things are to the east of us, some to the west and some to the north and the south. However, does the EU come under the heading of foreign affairs or domestic affairs? I am slightly confused about that. We joined the EU because of trade but there is no mention of trade in the debate’s title. We are faced with a form of European Japanese knotweed—that is, legislation which seems to throttle everything that we want to do. People believe that by introducing new rules and regulations progress will be made.
Perhaps the Minister will say whether the EU comes under the heading of foreign affairs. I do not approve of referendums—I always wonder whether the plural of referendum is referendums or referenda—as I was treasurer of the Conservative group on Europe and had to raise money to fund the previous referendum. They are not British instruments. Is Scotland a referendum, and what is devolved? Am I? I am a Scot; but I am not sure whether I am—I have never had a vote.
In this confused environment, could we please consider the importance of trade? Like my noble friend Lord Howell, I wish to draw attention to the significance of the Commonwealth. Does the Commonwealth come under the heading of foreign or domestic affairs? We should look at the remarkable strength of the countries to the east and west of us and at the political changes that have taken place. If we look at coastlines, which is a favourite subject of mine, we will see that 60% of the economic exclusion zones—that is, the 200-mile limits around countries—belong to Commonwealth countries. France is the only other country that comes anywhere near us in this regard, with about 15% of this area. We are a maritime nation and 21% of all the ships floating on the face of the earth are Commonwealth ships. Does this matter? I am confused as I do not know what strategy we have in this regard.
As regards defence, I never understood why we had troops in Germany for so long and why we have withdrawn them. What will happen to the Navy if Scotland becomes independent? Will all of it move down to Portsmouth? There is much uncertainty about these issues and I am confused about them. Indeed, I am too confused to make a constructive speech. I would just like somebody to tell me which of the headings shown on the annunciator constitute foreign affairs and which constitute domestic affairs. We are mixing up foreign with domestic.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I want to address two issues arising out of the Queen’s Speech. One relates to foreign affairs and the other to constitutional matters.
By and large we have enjoyed very good relations with India. The recent election of Mr Modi as the Prime Minister presents us with a unique opportunity in India’s history to deepen and expand our relations with that country. Mr Modi has brought about several extremely important changes in the administration of his country and injected new life into what has so far been a largely somnolent Government. His party has a clear majority and will stay in place for the next five years. Therefore, there is no danger of unstable coalitions.
Mr Modi has concentrated on good governance, administrative affairs and speedy decision-making. Most important of all, he has decided to concentrate on three issues: development and infrastructure projects of all kinds; university and pre-university education; and good relations with neighbours, especially Pakistan. All three have profound implications for us. The tremendous concentration on development opens up all kinds of opportunities for our businessmen and entrepreneurs. Pedagogical advice will be needed to fulfil the desire to expand education and create scores of new universities. That is going to require an enormous amount of help from the rest of the world. We can certainly capitalise on the opportunities that that offers. Only yesterday the Indian Prime Minister said that the Foreign Education Providers Bill will be passed. The Bill, which has lain quietly for four years in the lower House of the Indian Parliament, will enable foreign universities to set up their own campuses and provide a series of exchanges with their own satellite institutions. Given all this, we ought to consider urgently how to deepen our co-operation with India.
Mr Modi has said that he would like to have closer relations with Pakistan and put an end to the rivalry between the two countries. Afghanistan may become more stable when the Americans leave provided that India, Pakistan and the UK adopt a sensible foreign policy towards it. For all these reasons I believe that we should take the initiative in finding ways to expand and deepen co-operation between the two countries at various levels, as we did some months ago when we talked to Mr Modi on these issues.
Some people raise concerns about the communal violence that took place in Gujarat when Mr Modi was Chief Minister there. My own feeling is that, although the communal violence that took place between Hindus and Muslims should not be forgotten, one should not be too obsessive about it either. Mr Modi’s role in that episode has not been proven. The violence occurred when he had been the Chief Minister for hardly more than three or four months. He asked the neighbouring states for police help but it was not readily available. Similar incidents have happened in other parts of the country, including when Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, but they were largely ignored. From my point of view, the more important consideration is that Mr Modi tried to reach out to the Muslim community after the events. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that 22% of the Muslims voted for him in the last election. In the light of all that, I suggest that, although we should not forget what happened in 2002, we should put it behind us and concentrate on how best to co-operate with the Indian Government.
The constitutional issue that I want to touch on briefly concerns something that matters to me greatly. Glasgow University gave me my first job as an academic. I have great affection for Scotland just as I have great affection for this country. The idea that Britain could split up is something that I find deeply painful, although intellectually I can see that a case can be made for it. With fewer than 100 days to go to the referendum, there is no clear indication which way it will go. Some of my senior colleagues who work in Scottish universities tell me that it could go either way and that one mistake on the part of the Government here or on the part of those who advocate a no vote could sway the result. As a student of history and politics who has studied secessionist movements in India, I sound a note of caution. I am pained by the way we seem to be making the mistake that is often made when dealing with secessionist, nationalist movements of this kind, which is to use the language of intimidation and to threaten people with dire consequences if they vote to put their proposals into effect. Telling Scots, “If you do this, there will be do defence work, there will be no participation in the pound, you might not be able to stay on in the EU—in other words, your economy will not be what it is and you will be worse off by 30% or 40%”, is counterproductive. We think it might frighten people into doing our bidding. It does not do that. It has three consequences, none of which we would want to happen.
First, if I were a Scot, I would immediately say, “Don’t you think I know these consequences? Do you think I am so stupid, that I am your country cousin that you need to be telling me all this? This is what you have been doing for all these 300 years. We have resented your patronising, condescending attitude, and that is precisely at work here”. Secondly, the Scots might feel that we are bullying them or blackmailing them and not allowing them freedom of choice. Thirdly, and more importantly, we are confronting them with a stark choice: if you want to be Scottish, you cannot be British. If you want to be British, you cannot be Scottish. That is not at all what we want. I therefore suggest that, rather than use the politics of intimidation, we should be adopting a twofold approach.
First, we should invoke common history, common ties and ties of affection that have been built up over the years and show the Scots that they have every reason to be proud of their history and the kind of liberal democracy they have achieved precisely because they have been part of the UK. They would not have achieved what they have achieved, of which they are rightly proud, without being an integral part of the UK. In other words, the source of their Scottish pride lies in Britain, not in Scotland. We need to appeal to shared history and shared ties of affection. Secondly, we should also make it clear that the choice is not simply between things as they are and separation, and that, as my noble friend Lord Judd and others have said, we are prepared to discuss greater devolution of power, although the word “devolution” sounds rather patronising—so perhaps greater decentralisation of power. If we thought in those terms, we might be able to win the Scots over.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, in my short contribution to this debate on the gracious Speech, I intend to make a few comments on the Wales Bill and some matters relating to Wales. The Wales Bill, which has completed its passage through the other place, will give the National Assembly some powers over taxation, establish a five-year term for Welsh Assembly Governments, allow for dual candidacy in future elections and put an end to double jobbing where successful parliamentary candidates continue to hold on to their Assembly seats. I look forward to the debates on those issues.
It is now 15 years since the National Assembly for Wales came into being and the end of May marked the 15th anniversary of the Queen opening our Assembly. The Minister—my noble friend Lady Randerson—and I share a birthday with the official opening of the Assembly, and I remember very well the birthday celebrations over breakfast that day. We were not, of course, celebrating only the opening of the Assembly; we were celebrating the fact that the National Assembly had actually come into existence and we were among its first members. For those of us who in the 1980s and 1990s were committed to devolution, it was the dream becoming a reality. Liberals and Liberal Democrats have long believed in home rule, and it is ironic that this long-standing Liberal policy was enacted by a Labour Government but, I would argue, it was delivered by a coalition of parties for the yes campaign in Wales. The abiding, iconic image of the devolution quest for most Welsh people is not the image of Her Majesty opening the National Assembly, although that is valued and admired; it is, rather, an image from two years earlier of the Welsh party leaders, including the late Lord Livsey and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who were part of the yes campaign, with arms aloft in celebration after Ron Davies’s simple, historic words, “Good morning—and it is a very good morning in Wales”. Those of us who stayed awake the previous night through the tension of the referendum count, who bemoaned the losses and cheered the gains, will never forget the sheer joy of the last result from Carmarthenshire: the referendum had been won.
Now, 15 years later, this week has seen the BBC in Wales mark the 15th anniversary of the opening of the Assembly with a series of programmes looking at a different aspect of devolution each day. The inevitable question put to all Welsh politicians is, “Have your dreams for the Assembly been realised?”. To answer that question one has to begin by being charitable. The National Assembly for Wales is only 15 years old; in terms of the age of other democratic institutions all over the world, it is a mere child. The reserved powers model granted to Scotland was not granted to Wales. The Assembly was given an arbitrary number of members—60 members is fewer members than in a great many unitary authorities in Wales and presents problems in terms of scrutiny of measures emanating from its current powers. Estimates suggest that the application of the Barnett formula has deprived Wales of £300 million every year.
Devolution has certainly given the Welsh Assembly Government the freedom to make their own decisions and to do things differently, but herein lies the challenge. The challenge is to follow a different path but to be as successful as, or even better than, one’s neighbours. Doing things differently means that the Welsh Government’s record in key areas is disappointing. On the economy, Wales continues to lag behind, with the lowest GDP per head in the UK, at 74% of the UK average, down from 84% in 2007. In education, where we compete not only against our neighbours but against the world, Wales has slipped down the PISA rankings. Wales’s NHS continues to miss its own targets on waiting times.
My response to the BBC’s question has been that the dream has been tempered significantly by reality, but that new reality fires a new ambition to ensure more effective government for the people of Wales.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I wish to focus on the plight of women suffering from sexual violence in war, as this is particularly timely, given the global summit which has already been mentioned by noble Lords, and is a much needed initiative. My small NGO, Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust, takes us to places, often off the radar screen of major aid organisations and international media, where women are routinely subjected to such violence and where Governments allow it to continue with impunity. I shall give two examples: Burma and Sudan.
All is not well in the beautiful land of Burma. Despite some welcome reforms, the Burmese Government are continuing brutal policies of repression against the Muslim Rohingya people and the Burmese army has been continuing military offensives against ethnic nationals, with frequent violations of ceasefires in Shan and Kachin states and associated atrocities, including the use of rape and sexual slavery as weapons of war. As one story can portray horror more powerfully than a hundred statistics, I shall give an example: when our small team from HART was across the border in Kachin state, we came across a deserted village. The local people explained why the villagers had fled. There was a Burmese army camp on the mountain above the village. One day, a group of soldiers attacked villagers working in the paddy fields below and abducted a woman. She was tied to a stake in the camp, in full view of the villagers below, she disappeared at frequent intervals over the next few days and eventually disappeared for ever. One can only imagine the horrors inflicted on her or the anguish of her husband, parents and children having to watch her endure her fate.
Therefore, while we welcome the recent signing by the Burmese Government of the Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, one cannot help but wonder a little whether the timing of the signing, on the eve of the global summit, was designed to maximise positive publicity for the Burmese Government. I understand that a delegation of women from Burma is attending the summit to highlight the ongoing use of sexual violence by the Burmese army. I therefore ask the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government will urge the Burmese Government to make essential commitments—to be implemented within a timeframe of, say, six months—to end impunity and to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account; to support an independent investigation involving international expertise; to amend the 2008 constitution that condones sexual violence by guaranteeing impunity for sexual crimes; and to provide support for international civil society organisations, including women’s organisations such as the Women’s League of Burma, for their work in documenting cases of rape and providing support for victims of sexual violence.
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Alton, I return to Sudan, where the Government of Khartoum are continuing genocidal policies against their own people in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. Although these currently consist primarily of aerial bombardment of civilians in the Nuba mountains and Blue Nile—which has cynically escalated since the tragic outburst of conflict in South Sudan has attracted international attention—rape has been consistently used on a massive scale in Darfur, perpetrated by the Rapid Support Forces, formerly known as the Janjaweed. While the Government in Khartoum used to claim they had no connection to the Janjaweed, now they embrace the Rapid Support Forces, who are accountable to the National Intelligence and Security Service. Under the Sudanese constitution, the NISS is supposed to gather and analyse data, not run a paramilitary force. Rape as used in Darfur—as a weapon of war—is therefore clearly a regime policy.
I therefore ask the Minister what particular representations have been made to the Government of Sudan to call perpetrators, including the army, to account in order to ensure the cessation of violence against girls and women, and whether there has been any consideration of the provision of treatment, aftercare and support for such victims. Further, given the hard-line Islamist ideology of the Government of Sudan, a woman who tries to make a complaint related to rape is constrained by certain forms of Sharia law whereby she has to provide four independent male witnesses, and she herself may be charged with adultery, thereby becoming vulnerable to death by stoning.
I conclude by asking the Minister what steps are being taken to ensure that the full reality of all situations in all countries relevant this evening, including those in Burma and Sudan, will come under consideration, and what substantive measures will be taken to help women trapped in countries with obdurate Governments and armies still perpetrating sexual violence with impunity.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, unsurprisingly, even given the wide-ranging nature of the debate, the approaching referendum in Scotland has occupied a prominent place in it—quite rightly so, since it is by far the most important and imminent issue facing the United Kingdom. That importance is increasingly borne out in headlines as we approach the last 100 days of the campaign, with headlines such as, “100 days left to save the union”, and dramatic questions being asked, such as, “Is this the end of the union jack?”, and so forth. All this reminds those of us who are passionate about the union, wherever we live, of the imminence of the vote in Scotland and the vital importance of that vote to our future.
The gracious Speech says that the Government will make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. I very much welcome that commitment. I applaud the fact that the Government have already issued some useful publications to make the case, such as the booklet Scotland in the United Kingdom, which contains both useful information and powerful points in favour of the union. However, it is clear that the Government, in making the case, must recognise sensitivities. I was struck by Gordon Brown’s article in the Guardian yesterday, particularly his comment that,
“instead of using the language of threats and ultimatums”—
about the threat to Scotland’s shipyards and the orders on which they rely—
“a far better pro-union argument is to praise the unique contribution of Scottish defence workers and to support Scots who argue for pooling resources for our mutual defence”.
I strongly agree with him that it is essential to make the case positively in this way.
Recognising sensitivities is important, particularly when London-based Ministers visit Scotland and make statements there. As a north-easterner, I have an instinctive empathy with people in Scotland in this respect. In the north-east we have certainly experienced over the years a catalogue of disastrous ministerial visits. Long ago, when I was very young, I remember the late Lord Hailsham coming to the north-east and sporting a flat cap. Unfortunately—despite the fact, I am sure, that this was well intentioned—it came over as the action of a toff with a patronising and stereotyped view of northerners.
Another Conservative luminary, whom I will be kind enough not to name, came a few years ago to the constituency that I then represented in the House of Commons. Because he was in the north-east he obviously thought that it would be a good idea to praise Newcastle United. He started doing this, saw that his audience looked a little bit glum and wrongly drew the conclusion that perhaps he was not praising Newcastle United effusively enough—not realising that, in that particular part of the north-east, probably 80% of the people supported Sunderland. I could give many other tragicomic examples, but of course the difference this time is simply how important the issue is, and that such insensitivity in Scotland at the moment would be particularly unwelcome if it in any way jeopardised the chances of a strong no vote in the referendum.
It is important to stress the positive, as my noble friend Lord Reid did so cleverly in his take on the “Monty Python” sketch, and in the comments that were subsequently made by my noble friends Lady Liddell of Coatdyke and Lord McFall. I agree with them, too, that while emphasising the positive, we cannot simply ignore some of the big issues to which separation could give rise: economic turbulence, currency uncertainties, uncertainties over EU membership and many other aspects. I know that when these issues are raised, very often the pro-independence supporters claim that this is “Project Fear”—my noble friend Lord Parekh referred to this—and is designed simply to scare voters into voting no. Actually, fear is not restricted to voters in Scotland; it is very much shared by people on both sides of the border. So it should not be seen as trying to scare Scottish voters but simply as dealing with some of the important issues that we have to face.
In his speech in January, the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace—mentioned the position of many cross-border workers: some 30,000 cross the border in both directions each day, and up to 100,000 have longer commutes, such as former Tyneside shipyard workers who now work on oil rigs in Scotland. I know that many cross-border businesses and the people who work in them are concerned about how complicated and disturbed their lives would be if they were coping with two separate countries with separate administrations and financial systems instead of one United Kingdom.
In conclusion, I simply wish the no campaign every success in its efforts to maintain our United Kingdom and to keep, not break, the strong ties that bind us together, whether they be economic ties, defence and security ties, or ties of social justice, family links and human solidarity, which have characterised the union of which we have been part for more than 300 years.
Lord Loomba (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. This year, without much fanfare, Bill Cash MP introduced a fundamentally important Private Member’s Bill. As noble Lords will recall, the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill received such unanimous support that it sailed through both Houses without any problem and received Royal Assent in March. It alters the very nature of the law that governs the UK’s aid decisions.
We put at the very heart of the International Development Act 2002 the necessity of the Secretary of State to direct funds with the aim of reducing inequality between men and women. It also forced the Government to cast a critical eye over the aid we give as a country, and to consider whether we are doing all that we can do to work towards MDG 3.
The UK can be a little smug about some of the millennium development goals, but there is no cause for self-congratulation just yet. Goal 3—to promote gender equality and empower women—will never be reached if we ignore the specific economic challenges faced by one group of women in particular. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I am talking about widows. Every time I get to my feet in this House, noble Lords may think, “There he is, talking about widows again”. However, just a few weeks ago the British Army lost five men in a disastrous helicopter crash in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Three of those men left wives behind, but do we stop to think what that means? It is impossible to imagine how devastated their widows must feel.
I declare my interest as a founder and chairman trustee of the Loomba Foundation. We all know by now that there are more than 245 million widows around the world, with 500 million children. Through no fault of their own, many of them face many challenges such as discrimination and physical, psychological and sexual abuse. The question is: is Britain doing its bit to end these practices, empower widows and ensure that they and their children are treated as full members of society, or does our Department for International Development prefer to ignore the millions who are voiceless in order to tiptoe around cultural sensitivities?
As a country we spend more than £150 million in India—2% of DfID’s current budget. One of the four goals for DfID in India is to improve the lives of more than 10 million poor women and girls. Yet, among the 6,500 words the Government use to outline their operational plan in India, the word “widow” does not appear once. The current plan for UK aid to India finishes in 2015, after which our contribution will fall to just £29 million by 2016-17. However, even as we give less to India financially, we can give more intelligently.
First, we need to name the problem. Discrimination against widows and their children is real, so why do we not mention it? The UK is outspoken about the need to empower Dalit girls, but widows and their children in every state and social class can be seen as just as untouchable and as easy victims. Secondly, we need to continue to work with the Indian Government and partner groups to empower women and girls, and to improve gender equality. Cruelty towards widows is embedded in a culture that says that when a woman loses her husband, she has no real life any more. That is cultural suttee, and it can happen only when women’s inferiority is taken for granted.
Thirdly, we need to ensure that DfID leads the way in showing other nations that widowhood means an extra layer of difficulty through which many women and girls have to fight. As we move towards the next round of MDGs, and since UN Women has designated 23 June as International Widows’ Day, I ask the Department for International Development to work closely with UN Women to include the plight of widows in the post-MDG framework.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I left this House in 1999 along with a number of others, as I am sure noble Lords will recall. I am very honoured to have been invited back as the result of a Cross-Bench by-election. As I am on my second innings, I will let the cricketers among noble Lords decide whether I am now doing a maiden, a second maiden, or whether is just a question of “maiden over”;—I am not quite sure myself. Either way, I am very grateful to have this chance to contribute, as far as I can, to the debate today.
I have listened to the whole debate and have heard a range of views on Ukraine and Russia, which is the subject I will address. I declare an interest as a director of the British East-West Centre, which provided the UK contingent of election monitors for the recent elections in Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine are economically and strategically important to us for reasons which I do not have time or probably the necessity to go into with this audience. The events of the past few months seem to have brought their relationships with “the West”—the revival of that cold war term is telling in itself—to a new low.
Ukraine became an independent state in 1991. Russia retains definite strategic, economic and other interests there. The West has tried to draw Ukraine ever closer to political involvement with Europe, and the population of more than 45 million have their own interests, loyalties and history. Recent events suggest that the West, either by misadventure or deliberately, got itself into a tug-of-war with Russia over Ukraine. Each side—and they became sides—offered multi-billion dollar bids for the country, gave come-hither promises, and accused each other of covert interference. It is very unwise to get into a tug-of-war with somebody who is likely to pull out a gun.
As the tension escalated between the EU and Russia, two things happened. First, Russia simply annexed Crimea militarily. That completely illegal action has been rightly condemned, but it is of little surprise to anyone who knows the historical or strategic background to that relationship. President Putin’s subsequent swaggering contrasted sharply with western battle fatigue. I was reminded very much of that old playground cry, “Oh yeah? You and whose army?”. As a number of speakers have mentioned, that has not gone unnoticed in areas of the world such as the South China Sea. Earlier a noble Lord suggested that economic sanctions were the way to go. They are one of the tools in the box, but do we wish to economically destabilise a country that should be one of the guarantors of peace in Europe?
Secondly, Donetsk and Luhansk, the two eastern regions of the country, have descended effectively into warlordism. Beyond the reach of the proper authorities, roadblocks in and out of towns there are manned by well armed but ill trained men. Torture and disappearances are not uncommon. The new president, Mr Poroshenko, lost no time in declaring that the Crimea and eastern Ukraine would be, to use his phrase, “recovered”. The response from the separatists in those regions has been fairly dismissive. However, as we sit here tonight, firefights and shelling are going on, and large numbers of those soon to become refugees are beginning to pour out of the region. Are we facing a civil war? Possibly. Will Ukraine have a war with Russia? That is unlikely. My concern, however, is that this is a mess created by external actors which the new Administration in Ukraine will have to try to sort out.
I emphatically do not suggest that NATO should have escalated matters into a military conflict, nor that Russia’s actions are defensible, if understandable. I have worked for more than 20 years with that region, and a robust approach is usually the way to conduct negotiations. However, my overall concern is how we got into this situation in the first place.
The depth and subtlety of understanding that is found in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office consistently impresses me. However, it seems to have been brushed aside by our partners in their enthusiasm to grab hold of the western end of the rope and tug.
In conclusion, in seeking stable relations with Russia and Ukraine, we really must do all that we can to help and guide our western partners into a more nuanced recognition that mutual interest is what will solve this problem, not indulging in cold war rivalry, which will find a very ready echo in Moscow.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, my remarks are addressed first to the current controversy surrounding the next President of the EU Commission, and secondly to our perceptions of, and relations with, our MEPs whom we have just sent to Brussels. I should declare an interest for those who do not remember it: I was an MEP for 25 years, and I still hold one or two appointments in Brussels—of an honorary nature, let me say.
I remind noble Lords that the legal position under the Lisbon treaty is that the European Parliament must give a positive endorsement to the incoming President. That is an important starting point because we should note that the three major groups in the European Parliament—namely, the largest, the centre-right European People’s Party; the centre-left social democrats known as the PES; and the Liberals—represent 62% of the votes and indeed of the seats in the European Parliament. In other words, you cannot get a President through the Parliament without the support of those groups.
The candidates for the presidency were not chosen in some backroom way; all three major parties had conventions of their European party to choose the three candidates. I regret to say that the Conservatives chose to marginalise themselves, first by leaving the EPP and secondly by setting up their own group, called the European Conservative and Reformist Group, whose contribution to the debate was not to choose any candidate for President at all. I suppose they can say that they are not committed, but that is about as far as it goes. It would not be so bad but I am afraid that Labour stood on the sidelines of the PES and has conspicuously failed to endorse Martin Schulz, the PES candidate for President. Both those candidates were picked at party congresses, not in smoke-filled rooms. I must give credit to the Liberals; they played a full part in choosing Guy Verhofstadt as the Liberal choice. Indeed, according to the latest rumours he may well become the next President of the European Parliament.
We have a candidate in play, chosen by the party that won the most seats. I have met Jean-Claude Juncker on a number of occasions. He is a skilled negotiator, has been an extremely good chair of the euro group and excels in what is known as quiet diplomacy. I would have thought that those were very useful attributes. I have also met the other person who seems to be mentioned at the moment, Christine Lagarde, strongly pushed by some and, let me say, a most formidable candidate of enormous ability and clear vision. If it is the wish of Her Majesty’s Government to move away from a natural conciliator such as Jean-Claude Juncker to a figure more akin to Jacques Delors, then Christine Lagarde is the candidate for them to back. But please do not come to any conclusion that somehow out there is a marvellous candidate who is going to endorse the position of the British Government, which, I regret to say, both major parties have pushed so far out of the mainstream of parliamentary politics that it is sad—that is the only thing that I can say about it.
Lastly on this subject, I remind the House that Jean-Luc Dehaene was the candidate in 1994. The British Government moved heaven and earth to get him removed. We ended up with Jacques Santer, who led the only Commission that has been forced to resign. We could well end up in the same position here. I say to the Government: “Be careful what you wish for”.
My second point is about MEPs. I am astonished at how little attention we pay to them. When I was an MEP, you used to be able to get a pass to come in here; you were not necessarily very welcome but you could get through the door. I asked this week what the arrangements now were and I have been given the current guidance, which says:
“Security staff in the House of Commons have been instructed not to grant access to UK MEPs unless they are accompanied—throughout their visit—by a passholder who is entitled to escort guests”.
They can get a pass for this end of the Building, but in fact we have moved backwards. I say to this House: if you keep on kicking the dog and telling it that it is horrible, do not be surprised if some people agree. I put this to both major parties: it is time for us to look very carefully at the way in which we relate to the European Union, to stop being so negative and to start to settle down and ask how we can build a constructive relationship that will deliver what Britain needs. We are on a loser and we need to change.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech did not refer to Egypt, but when a group of us from this House visited there earlier this year, Egyptians, knowing that their country had been mismanaged for some time, asked us for our help. They face huge problems with education and healthcare, the large numbers of unemployed causing unrest, the need to retrain people for technical jobs, an acute shortage of energy that is limiting industrial expansion and their reliance on imported basic foods, wheat, sugar and oil to expand their agriculture.
Since that visit, we have established an active All-Party Parliamentary Group on Egypt, and the Egyptians that we met there have worked hard, through Samir Takla, a devoted Egyptian expat here, to arrange for 20 of us, from both Houses and all parties, to go again to Egypt this coming weekend. The Mohammed Farid Kamis Foundation, which built the British University in Egypt, has arranged for us to meet the Prime Minister, the Foreign and Interior Ministers, the Grand Mufti, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar, His Holiness the Coptic Pope, Mohamed Fayek, the chairman of the National Council for Civil Rights and people from all sides in the parliamentary elections, and we will be accompanied by the British ambassador to Egypt, James Watt.
In view of our country’s historical relations with Egypt, its strategic location and its influence in the Middle East, Egypt must be a priority for our help. I am told that in Syria, following the collapse and descent into chaos of that country, we have allocated £600 million for humanitarian aid for those affected. If we aid the new Egyptian Parliament, as soon as it is in place, to act decisively, responsibly, transparently and mindfully, we could perhaps, with the use of tens of millions of pounds, help it to turn that country around. The Minister offered this “smarter aid” in her opening remarks for good governance and the rule of law.
We in your Lordships’ House have a part to play too. Egyptians asked for the experienced parliamentarians of our APPG to be part of a process to facilitate with them a continuing national dialogue. We are already in discussions with them on their need for religious freedoms, civil liberties, women’s rights, the rule of law and equality in their economy, but they want us, immediately their Parliament is formed, to help them to begin to mobilise all available energies within Egypt by creating what we have now termed the Middle East Centre for Civic Involvement, MECCI, which would be used to identify issues, find solutions and prioritise them for the people. We would do this using the facilities in their great international universities where the faculty would involve their wider academia, the students would link to youth, and experts from the UK could act as facilitators.
Within Egypt’s 94 million people, there are many groupings that have their own hopes, fears, grievances and aspirations—Copts, Nubians, the youth, women’s groups, health professionals and educators. MECCI would establish within Egypt a robust process of sensitive, patient long-term dialogue with short-term feedback, and would facilitate listening to each and every group and help to translate their frustrations and fears into pragmatic slates of requests. At the same time, we would offer the parliamentarians and local devolved authorities tools to find solutions and prioritise these. There would be continuous feedback to the people on plans, actions taken and progress. I would like to make it clear that this new Middle East Centre for Civic Involvement would be a tool for parliamentarians and the people to communicate with each other, and would be closely affiliated to our All-Party Parliamentary Group on Egypt.
Today I am asking noble Lords to help us to help Egypt to gain the governance that it seeks, and for Her Majesty’s Government to support this work whereby Britain could help to facilitate wider reform and stability of the whole region. Over time, with the experience that we gain in Egypt, MECCI will begin to link with other individual countries in the region. Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al-Jaber’s MBI Foundation has generously this month provided ample funding for a scoping exercise for MECCI. Sheikh Mohamed has been promoting better education and governance across the region for over 20 years. His generosity now has allowed us to spend time interviewing consultants familiar with the situation who have successfully dealt with similar conditions elsewhere. Together we will plan out how MECCI might work in practical terms, what it would cost to set up, and how it can be funded sustainably.
We have consulted on all this with the Egyptian ambassador here in the UK, its Minister for Foreign Affairs, its team who put together the constitution, and all the people we met on our first visit. They all realise that they are taking on a huge task to restore Egypt to its former glory. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will see that if we do not succeed in helping Egypt to rule with the will of its people, it could become another Syria. There are forces afoot within Egypt and in other countries that would actually like Egypt to follow Syria and for mayhem to ensue. We need to support Egyptians through this dialogue to help to remove the causes of conflict, instability and extremism; to promote national unity and thus restore peace; and to re-establish their tourist industry and regain the confidence of foreign investors through the respect for the rule of law. Were Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and others in the Maghreb to find their feet in these next years and begin to work and trade together, they could serve as a light to the nations that surround them, which could be the beginning of a Middle East and north Africa that contributes greatly to the world’s economy, ecology, art, science, medicine and culture.
In closing, having kept the Foreign Office and DfID informed on all this since we returned, I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to offer a positive message of support for MECCI that we 20 parliamentarians can take to the people of Egypt and their parliamentarians this weekend.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to share in this debate and to hear so many outstanding contributions. I would even use the word “awesome” to describe some of them. One feels, as a little Welsh lad from the hills, that it is a tremendous honour to be able to do this—and I am sure that I am not the only person to feel that. This House and the House of Commons over the years have done so much and been so wonderful in the lives of people. From the time of the Magna Carta through Wilberforce, to expanding the franchise and to recent legislation, we have moved from serfdom to citizenship—a tremendous move.
Individuals have benefited and are benefiting from the rights that we acquire and also from our obligations as citizens. Of course, we need to continue this so that each person in the UK has a sense of belonging and ownership. We must seek to make it possible for every individual to achieve his or her potential and become what they might be. We need a wide educational system, teachers who both inspire and enable and are themselves encouraged and recognised, so that from the early years youngsters grow up with the knowledge of our society and a desire to be part of it.
The Private Member’s Bill that I introduced yesterday is to encourage voter registration, especially among young people. At present, 6.2 million people in the UK aged between 16 and 24 are able to register to vote. How I hope that becoming a part of society and community will be highly valued not only in the UK but also in Europe itself, and that people will want to be part of the communities to which they belong. That Bill is going ahead. I referred to those 6.2 million people being able to register, but only 55% are registered and, of those, only 24% are certain to vote. We have a big job to do to make people feel that this is their country, that they have the last word and that they can themselves influence a policy.
We have the problem mentioned already this afternoon of how we relate citizenship to newcomers to the United Kingdom. That demands our attention, and not only as individual political parties. I am sure that the question could be tackled better together. We should find some way to work together in a positive way, as members of all parties and no parties, to bring about the relationship that we require—or rather, that we would desire, in the United Kingdom. Nowadays we are allowing a spirit of hostility to enter our existence and talk and so on, which will destroy our centuries-old record as a people who have welcomed those who are different from ourselves. There is nothing easier than a populist message; it is easily done, but it is so destructive in so many words and so many ways. When the Huguenots fled from France they were welcomed here. The Jewish people in 1937, 1938 and 1939 were welcomed to these shores as they fled the evil of Nazism. Folk from the Caribbean came here and supported our health service and transport service; they have contributed so much to us as a culture. Kenyan Asians came—and then we had the locals, as you might call them, from Ireland and Scotland, and even dairy farmers from Wales. About 40 years ago, I am told, there were 3,600 Welsh dairies in London. We came and were welcomed, and you could not do without us.
Every community that comes here contributes so richly to our wide culture. I would like the Minister to give me an assurance that nothing will be done to make it more difficult for us to be the beneficiaries of this wider culture, so that we can live together in a harmony that the rest of the world will envy.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, in a defence debate it is a tradition to start with a tribute to those who have fallen in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and I open my remarks today with a tribute to aid workers, who have also died on active service, working on the front line in Africa, Syria, Afghanistan and many other areas of conflict. Aid workers in Africa and Asia are now targeted as if they were a fighting force. They will not, generally, be remembered, except of course by their families and colleagues.
I would like briefly to mention my concerns about Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, has already mentioned EU Sub-Committee C’s timely inquiry, and I know many Peers today share his concerns and those of the noble Lord, Lord King. My own suspicion, already much better expressed by my noble friend Lord Cromwell, is that the EU has overreached itself and has not taken sufficient account of the historical ties between Russia and some of its neighbours, notably Georgia and Ukraine.
Conflict seems to be on the increase, especially in Africa and the Middle East, partly because the media, notably Al-Jazeera, have brought conflict much closer to us. Victims of conflict are added to the high toll of poverty, which is the biggest killer of all. Countries such as Somalia and South Sudan have already low levels of literacy and health, which keep them on the lowest rungs of the ladder; civil war has almost thrown them off the ladder altogether. It seems to outsiders that whole swathes of Africa are now out of bounds to aid workers, yet the staff of the ICRC or United Nations agencies such as the UNHCR risk their lives in regions like Upper Nile and Darfur, and in many areas there is no authority except for local militias which often aggravate the conflict. But there are many areas where peaceful development is a real possibility. Even South Sudan has vast stretches of fertile land; minerals are another source of wealth. Investors and agencies have a common purpose in bringing prosperity to the poorest developing countries, but their frustration often stems from the lack of information, which means knowing the level and scale of poverty.
It is difficult to count the numbers in need. Because of the variations between and within countries, it is nearly impossible to set standards or calculate how many people live in extreme poverty. It is no wonder that the World Bank has had trouble with its poverty statistics. The $1 a day calculation was a handy way of describing the millennium development goals. It enabled the UN to proclaim that the number of extreme poor in the world, which had long remained at around 800 million, had been halved—and so it had, until the $1 a day was updated to $1.25, when the numbers accordingly went back up by 400 million. With the help of the Overseas Development Institute, I have been trying to learn how economists reach these calculations. They do it on the basis of household surveys that take account of purchasing power parity through something called the International Comparison Programme, which is carried out every six years. The latest survey showed that consumption in China and parts of Asia was growing much faster than previously thought. For some economists, this meant that poverty again fell dramatically, from 20% to about 9% of the world population. Meanwhile, the Brookings Institution did a different calculation, raising the poverty level to $1.55 and basing its results on the 15 poorest countries. Again it came up with an extreme poverty figure of 870 million. The end result is that the poor, in the biblical sense, remain with us just as before; and the UN says that a billion people could still be extremely poor by 2030.
The one thing that has been agreed is that we can no longer base our statistics crudely on GNP per capita, which has been so convenient in the past. We must now take account of social factors such as employment, access to education and so on, and these are extremely difficult to assess and compare. Can the Minister say what our Government’s policy is on data collection for the new millennium goals? Is this a priority for DfID? Can he confirm that the High-level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda recommended that the new targets be tailored to different income and social groups? This will surely mean that a concerted effort must be made to assess the numbers in each group. This is a herculean task in about 40 of the poorest countries that still lack the necessary data and means of collecting the information. Nevertheless, the work has to be done if we are going to have confidence in achieving these goals in years to come.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, the competence and quality of advice given by Foreign Office officials are fundamental to the judgment calls that Ministers subsequently have to make. Therefore, high morale and a sense of being valued and appreciated are obviously important. It would be fair to say that the accretion of foreign affairs control and activity into Downing Street, which had taken place over the years, did not improve either morale or the quality of judgments on issues abroad.
However, the central importance of our Foreign Office is now felt to have been restored in large measure, to our national benefit. Today, new strategic or commercial opportunities have arisen and have been recognised, and extra staff deployed accordingly. This has happened, for example, in Latin America, China—particularly outside Beijing—Turkey and east Asia. A new language training centre is most welcome, now that it has been established. Similarly, we should note the close co-operation that now exists between UKTI and the FCO. A huge export effort is now underway, and more export finance is available, particularly to smaller and medium-sized businesses. There are 16 trade envoys appointed by the Prime Minister, covering 30 markets. They come from both Houses and are cross-party. I cover Algeria, and I should like your Lordships to know the support that all of us have received from UKTI in our respective roles. I have been superbly guided and encouraged by our diplomatic staff in Algiers, and all of us can provide similar reports.
I should like to mention two countries in particular. Ukraine continues to dominate headlines. For a number of years, I have been chairman of the British Ukrainian Society, met many of the politicians and got to know the country well. Since its independence and subsequently the Orange Revolution, it would be fair to say that the level of governance in Ukraine has been poor, and that prime ministers and presidents have left office extremely rich—at times in a grotesque way. All this has either stunted or bled the exchequer. In November, Ukraine was due to sign an EU association agreement, linked into a deep and comprehensive free-trade accord. However, no money was available from the EU. So, at the last moment, President Yanukovych turned to Russia. The rest, regrettably, is history. No country can divorce itself from its geography, and Ukraine remains heavily dependent on Russia for its exports and energy provision, however unpalatable. It is therefore welcome that contact between President Poroshenko and President Putin has been made. The EU association agreement, however, needs to be signed, and conditionality will then be imposed. That should lead to vital judicial and commercial reform. I very much hope that we will get assurance from the Minister that our Government will encourage the Ukrainians to go down this route, which is so necessary. If nothing else, the actions of Russia in Crimea and the provocations in eastern Ukraine make it crucial that dependence on Russian energy supplies, used as an arm of foreign policy, is reduced.
There is one country, a major energy provider of oil and gas, with which we have quietly developed a remarkable relationship—Algeria. Historically, our links have been minimal but, following the visit of our Prime Minister there in January last year, our bilateral ties have developed at every level, including as a reliable energy supplier, and particularly in the area of security. Given the porous border of that country, this is a huge aspect on which we are giving our encouragement and support. Latterly, we have seen our business with Algeria soaring, not only in respect of energy but in areas such as health, education, satellite technology and agriculture. Considering its geographical location, Algeria’s social and political stability has been remarkable. Algeria’s Government are spending extensively on its physical infrastructure, health and education; and the desire to learn and be trained in the English language is limitless. We are addressing this. Algeria would like to become an associate member of the Commonwealth; it is not a member of the Francophonie. Algeria exemplifies what I am trying to say this evening and what I was referring to earlier—finding fresh business opportunities and political contact, and forming a much closer, multifaceted, overall relationship with a country with which our traditional links have not been great. It is now a partnership that is mutually valued and strong.
There is much greater functional coherence in our often new relationships in many parts of the world, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who are driving this process on.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the hotchpotch of issues that this debate has thrown together bears little relationship to the content of the legislative programme, and the same goes for most speeches so far. I therefore thought that I would start by referring to at least one piece of legislation that I approve of and is actually in the programme. It will need strengthening, but I strongly support, and congratulate the Government on bringing forward, the Modern Slavery Bill. That Bill and the topics that it deals with have a number of dimensions. They clearly include the appalling sex trade and the trafficking of women and children in particular. As my noble friend Lord Collins mentioned and as the Guardian highlighted this morning, the Bill also deals with the trafficking of workers. I will seek to ensure that those aspects are strengthened as the Bill goes through this House.
The second thing that I should like to say—which I was not expecting to say—to the Government and my own Front Bench is that I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in terms of the need for this country to have much more positive engagement with the institutions of the European Union. Whatever we may think, it is necessary to take that on board. The referenda are already dominating this debate in some ways. I hope and believe that the Scots will vote to stay in the United Kingdom, and I hope that if we have to vote in a referendum on Europe we vote accordingly to stay within the EU. I hope the case for both is put rather more positively than it sometimes is. However, even if Scotland votes no and even if we vote to stay in Europe, the very process of those campaigns will change the nature of our politics and the nature of our democracy.
In particular, it is clear that there will be more devolution to Scotland following a no vote. We have before us a Bill for more devolution to the Welsh Government, which I support, including on taxation. In Northern Ireland there are calls for more devolution on taxation as well, particularly corporate taxation, for obvious reasons in relation to competition from the Republic. In many respects we are becoming, and have become, an asymmetrical federal state. That has implications for our constitution. It has implications for this House, which I will not go into today, but we will have our chance to debate that in a few days’ time. The issue I wish to focus on is that that raises the issues of subsidiarity and devolution within England. I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA, although I am not speaking for it here.
Some may ask, “What subsidiarity in England?”. In essence, outside of Greater London there is no devolution of substance in England any more. We argue for subsidiarity but, despite the supposed intentions of the Localism Act, less is devolved to local authorities than 10 years ago, and a huge amount less than 40 years ago. Successive Governments have taken more and more powers away from local authorities. They allow them fewer and fewer resources, give them less and less discretion and have taken away whole chunks of responsibilities, such as housing, education, the ability to set their own budgets and to raise their own resources.
Local authorities are simply becoming delivery mechanisms for the central state. That is politically counterproductive. We clearly recognise in Scotland and Wales the distance and resentment towards Westminster-dominated decisions. We need to recognise that the same instincts apply in Newcastle, Norwich, Cumberland and Cornwall. I am not in any sense arguing for an English Parliament—I do not think that is the right outcome—nor am I suggesting that we should go back to the construct of the rather artificial English regions and make them a political entity. However, we do have to think again about how power is devolved in England. I am quite attracted to the idea of city regions, but I am probably more likely to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who said at the beginning of this debate that we need a whole constitutional commission to look at these issues. That needs to start as soon as possible.
I have two other quick points. First, I have a small note of dissent on Ukraine. I hold absolutely no brief for Putin and his strategy, but I query the precipitation of this crisis and the alacrity with which the West—all of us—accepted the legitimacy of a street-based coup to depose, effectively, an elected Government. That came not that long after virtually the same thing had happened in Egypt to an elected president. I hold no brief for the Muslim Brotherhood, nor for the previous corrupt Ukrainian Government, but I ask policymakers to think how this looks in the eyes of the Arab world and the citizens of the former Soviet Union in terms of the legitimacy and reality of the West’s commitment to democracy.
My last point is on the culture and DCMS brief. A year ago there was one DCMS issue that probably should never have been a DCMS issue but dominated our discussion in this House: what we were doing post Leveson. That seems to have disappeared from view; I have not heard any speech on it today. The Government and Parliament have retreated. We have been foisted with a partial, industry-based quasi-regulator that is probably no better—in some ways it may be worse—than the one we had before. The issue of regulation of press behaviour has obscured the central issue here, which is plurality of ownership of the media. We have retreated definitely from that so that it is out of sight, yet your Lordships’ House has a committee that has done a very good report on that area. I do not agree with all of it, but we need to return to this issue. True democracy needs diversity of opinion; that means plurality of ownership. Some time—not too far in the distance, I hope—politicians will grasp that issue and do something about it, but evidently not this Government and not this Queen’s Speech.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted that the gracious Speech highlighted the Government’s commitment to continue building a stronger economy and a fairer society, especially for our children. The inclusion of the Modern Slavery Bill, the extension of free childcare for more disadvantaged two year-olds and the Serious Crime Bill, which will tackle child neglect, are all welcome news. I look forward to debating those issues, as they will dramatically affect out children. However, I was slightly disappointed not to have heard anything about the creative industries, as this is an area that also affects our children and young people’s well-being.
First, I congratulate the Government on the bold initiatives they have already taken to help our creative industries. Because of tax credits, Britain has become a magnet for international film, television and animation productions. The introduction of tax credits for the theatre was also welcome news. However, there are still major issues that need to be addressed. Two of them are very close to my heart.
The first is the representation of our diverse society in the media, especially in film and television, both on screen and, most importantly, behind the camera and in the boardrooms where, at present, a person of colour is a very rare sight. During awards ceremonies there is virtually no diverse representation in the production teams receiving awards, which is always so disheartening. This lack of diversity in the media is an issue I have tackled for the past 40 years, and although great strides have been made during that time, more desperately needs to be done for the sake of our young people, who need to see themselves reflected positively in our society and be given role models to aspire to.
I am pleased to say that the honourable Ed Vaizey, who I have been working with, is making exciting progress by gathering interested parties from across the creative industries to find a permanent and inclusive way forward. We must not fail. We must seize this opportunity to make a lasting difference, because major British successes, like “12 Years a Slave” and the soon to be released “Belle” demonstrate the untapped talent we have in this country. Opportunities need to be accessible for this success to continue.
The National Film and Television School, which trains the next generation of film makers, is holding a Striving for Diversity Nirvana gala, which I chair, so I declare an interest. Its aim is not only to celebrate the UK’s diverse talent but to provide a career path for those from diverse backgrounds to learn creative skills. This is all good news, but as I said before, more needs to be done to reassure young people who feel alienated by the lack of inclusion. Perhaps the Government can tell the House what more is being done to ensure that we have positive outcomes on diversity in the creative industries.
The second issue I wish to address is the need for more investment in children’s television programming—and again I declare an interest. Pact, the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, is leading a campaign to introduce a tax credit for children’s live-action television. The Government’s investment in media tax credits has demonstrated a healthy rate of return in both domestic investment and overseas interest in co-productions. Why not open up these opportunities to the makers of children’s productions by introducing a tax credit, not just for animation but for children’s live-action television as well: entertainment, documentaries, factual and current affairs, but most of all dramas?
The Children’s Media Foundation also believes that a tax incentive will stimulate commissioning of more uniquely British programming and encourage international collaboration. This is so important, because, in the past 10 years, we have seen a significant decline in the number and range of quality programmes produced for children in this country. Ofcom’s statistics are simply shocking: only 1% of newly made programmes are made in Britain. That is not good enough, and it matters. If our children are to feel part of the society in which they live, they need to see themselves represented on screen, to help them understand their world. So they need to be engaged by programmes, websites and apps of relevance. If this tax incentive can stimulate ITV to start commissioning children’s programmes again and encourage the international giants, Disney, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon, which all want to increase locally produced UK-relevant programmes, this can only add to the variety of programmes that speak to our children.
The BBC is the dominant and sole remaining buyer of children’s content, so a tax credit would address the current market failure in PSB children’s programming. For a modest investment, the UK could support a sector that often struggles fully to finance programmes. It would also support a sector that acts as an incubator for on-screen and off-screen talent, providing valuable training and skills development. The economic and financial case is very strong. More production would take place in the UK; more studios would be used here; more technical and production staff would be employed; more British talent could write, compose and perform; and programmes would have more export potential through international and format sales. This is a win-win situation from every angle because the cultural case is also overwhelming. A tax credit would secure relevant British programming for a generation of children to come. We can all gaze back at our favourite children’s programme through the square window. A tax credit would ensure that there was less cultural invasion.
There is much concern about the media that our children consume. We worry about the influence of the internet, games, television and advertising, and about other sinister influences on our children. However, so often we do little to support what is good, relevant, challenging, stimulating and meaningful for them. Why is that? A society is judged by how it treats its children and what it provides for them. Therefore, will the Government consider putting measures in place to bring about a tax credit for children’s television productions? This tax credit is essential. It is desperately needed for our children and our young people’s well-being and it should be put in place now, during this Parliament, as a gift for our children.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, Her Majesty stated in the gracious Speech:
“My Government will continue to work with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to … promote reconciliation and create a shared future”.
The devolved Administration are not succeeding in their attempts. It was disappointing that, having travelled so far towards resolution of matters relating to the past, to parades and to flags, politicians were unable to reach agreement at the Haas talks. It is to be hoped that the Government will give every encouragement and assistance to those involved in the further talks, which are starting now.
Our security situation and our peace remain fragile, and that is of importance to the United Kingdom as a whole. During the year 2013-14, there was one death, 54 shooting incidents, 69 bombing incidents, 28 paramilitary shooting casualties and 42 paramilitary-style assault casualties, and 10 firearms and 23 kilograms of explosives were seized. Thirty-two people were charged under the Terrorism Act.
Critical to the security of the peace process and our shared future are the institutions established under the Good Friday agreement. They form part of a complex structure which underpins the growing acceptance of the rule of law and constitutional process. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is one such institution. It is facing major budget cuts, which will reduce its income to the level that it was at 13 years ago, when it was established. Responsibility for the Human Rights Commission remains here, not in Northern Ireland, and today the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland expressing concern at the situation. If the cuts go ahead, there is a very real fear that the NIHRC will not be able to comply with the Paris principles. Its category A status will be put in jeopardy and, because of that, the category A status of the British Equality and Human Rights Commission will also be jeopardised. What we have achieved in human rights terms gives us the moral authority to speak on the international stage on such matters. If category A status is lost, the UK’s standing internationally will be harmed.
Many people wish that the past would go away; it will not do so. At present, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the other place is inquiring about the Government’s “on the run” scheme, under which comfort letters were provided through Sinn Fein to various people who had reason to believe that they might be under investigation by the state. The revelation of the OTR scheme has caused outrage, not least because, as your Lordships know, a man was freed by the Old Bailey in March this year, having been charged with the Hyde Park bombing, because he had received one of these letters.
Another issue which is causing significant concern and which has the capacity to undermine attempts to build a shared future relates to matters falling within the grey area between justice, which is devolved, and national security, which is not devolved. National security, as your Lordships know, does not have a specific definition. The problem is that it can be used, sometimes without justification, as a reason for refusal to allow access to material required by those charged with investigating what has happened in the past.
There are serious problems with our inquest system. While justice is devolved and security is not, it is the UK which has a duty to provide timely Article 2-compliant inquests. That is not happening. Inquests for people who died at the hands of paramilitaries and of the state, and which were opened soon after the deaths, were adjourned because coroners could get neither the necessary information nor the resources. In a letter, which has been made public, dated May 2014 to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland from the coroner service, it was stated:
“It should be viewed as an enormous … embarrassment to the State that these Inquests have not been held”.
Some of these cases are decades old. In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights awarded damages to one family who were still awaiting an inquest after the shooting of their son in 1992. The damages were small—£10,000. Thirteen years later, the High Court in Belfast has awarded the same family £7,500 for frustration. Again, they are small damages but the costs of such actions are enormous, and the embarrassment to the Government for failing to provide a proper inquest system is high. This money could have been used to improve the coronial system. Further damages claims are now inevitable.
In January this year, the findings of an inquest into a police shooting 20 years ago were quashed on a variety of grounds. In delivering his judgment, the judge found the PSNI responsible for a delay of up to 11 years in holding the hearing. At present, the coroner is trying to conduct inquests into cases which were investigated by John Stalker and Colin Sampson. He opened the inquests again in 2007 and asked for access to the reports. In 2010 he got some access to redacted reports, but access to the full files has remained very difficult. In 2010 he also asked for an investigator to assist the process—a perfectly normal request. This has not been granted.
Over four years, only 50% of the Stalker/Sampson material has been examined and made available to the coroner. The process of redaction is being carried out by former RUC/PSNI Special Branch officers. Some of these former officers have been identified as having served with or known 92 of the potential inquest witnesses. In the May 2014 letter, the coroner stated that the present attitude of the PSNI to classification of the material is driving up costs, not reducing them.
A few years ago, Her Majesty’s Coroner was allowed to go into a police station and look at the secret material. He could make notes on it but could not take them out of the police station. Now, he is allowed to send in junior counsel. Junior counsel can record notes on a laptop, which is provided, but junior counsel is not permitted, except in very limited circumstances, to take that laptop away. Junior counsel, who is security-cleared, then has to brief senior counsel, who is not and not working full-time on the job. The consequence is that junior counsel cannot tell senior counsel what junior counsel has found out, yet senior counsel has to advise the coroner.
There are two obvious consequences to that situation. One is that the gatekeepers to access to this material are people who have a possible conflict of interest. I say no more. The other is that the whole process is so slow that at this rate it is not even possible to contemplate when the inquests might begin. As the state is seen to fail repeatedly in the discharge of its obligations under the law, the process of growing trust in the rule of law is inevitably damaged.
There are things that the Government can do to address these issues—they are not complex. I acknowledge and defend the need to protect national security. The concept can, however, be used as a barrier to due process rather than a shield from threats against the state. I acknowledge that much resource has been made available to Northern Ireland, but the reality is that Northern Ireland is carrying a burden which England, Scotland and Wales do not. It is the burden of the legacy of the Troubles. It requires both resources and courage to face the extent to which wrong things were done.
Government have a significant responsibility to ensure that the coronial system is fit for purpose and resourced to succeed. Failure to do so will end up only in our being back in the European court. There is an enormous funding deficit in this area. Government have recently submitted to the Committee of Ministers plans for a legacy inquest unit and a cross-agency group on delay, but there is little detail on what is being proposed and it is far from clear whether it will address the enormous problems and endemic delay currently in the system. I therefore ask the Government to deal with these very real problems and, by so doing, to give real assistance to those currently trying to sustain and consolidate the peace process and to build a shared future.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, the gracious Speech has already had a good airing of the measures it contains in this House and in the other place. With the indulgence of this House, I should like to raise an issue that was not specifically contained in it. One of the most acute problems facing our society now and in the longer term is obesity and the lack of facilities to combat it. One area for progress, but by no means the only one, would be for more emphasis to be placed on the need for more sporting and recreational facilities, especially for the youngsters in our society. The British Medical Association estimates that half the population of England alone will be obese by 2050. Currently in the UK, one-third of children are overweight or obese, which underlines the need for improved facilities.
The gracious Speech referred to the Government’s infrastructure agenda. I understand that this measure is intended to be wide-ranging and, therefore, is relevant to my proposals. Numerous experts have argued that smaller infrastructure projects are vital in addition to those listed in the gracious Speech. For example, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors points out that,
“infrastructure projects don’t need to be big to be effective in creating growth … a small amount of capital investment would quickly deliver great benefits”.
The Centre for Economics and Business Research produced a report that evidenced the major positive impact to the UK economy that investing in our local sports infrastructure has in terms of jobs and growth, aside from the obvious health and regeneration benefits.
Crucially, a massive number of these sports facility projects right across the country are “shovel-ready”. In other words, we would not have to wait, say, 10 or 20 years to see the economic and social benefits of this investment, as we would for large-scale infrastructure projects. Many of these projects would be ready to commence in months if given the capital. Some schemes are currently in existence. I declare an interest as president of the Football Foundation, which is well known to Members of this House as the largest sports charity in the UK. It brings together the FA, the Premier League, the Government and Sport England to help rebuild the country’s dilapidated grassroots facilities.
I would like to refer to some facts that have only this week come to my attention from a report relating to the problems of grassroots facilities. The report states that,
“the relatively poor facilities encountered by players outside of school environment are an important factor in the fall-off in participation … a major difficulty for many clubs in relation to training is to find suitable areas for use in the dark winter months”.
I refer to those quotes because they were not from a report published this week, last week, last month or even last year but from a report written 42 years ago and submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. This report was unearthed by Glenn Moore, football editor of the Independent, for which I am grateful.
However, the future is not all doom and gloom, despite the absence of successive Governments to tackle the need for action in a positive way. As illustrated in that report of 42 years ago, floodlights are critical to illuminate playing services during dark winter evenings. Since 2000, when the Football Foundation was founded, together with its partners it has contributed £500 million to the grassroots game but the scale of the problem for our country’s 40,000 playing pitches will take many years to tackle.
The foundation research shows that there is an average increase in football participation of 10% when facilities have been upgraded by investment and an increase of 12% in other sports such as cricket, rugby and netball. The recent England Commission report by Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association, highlights the pressing need for grassroots facilities. He points out that in this country, and in the regions in particular, no play takes place on the pitches of this country for many months of the winter. I hope that Greg Dyke’s policies are approved.
I am sure that I carry everyone here when I say that we will be cheering on Roy Hodgson’s England team when it plays Italy on Saturday on its way to winning the World Cup in Brazil.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, I would like to build on some of the excellent speeches from earlier in this debate as regards Scotland, including in particular the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and an especially powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan. The issue of Scottish independence is currently the biggest challenge facing our nation. The potential consequences not only for Scotland but, as has been pointed out, for the rest of the UK are profound.
Everyone in the UK, particularly those in Scotland aged 16 and over who get the opportunity to vote in this referendum, carries a significant responsibility on their shoulders for this and for future generations. It is not only about getting the decision right, although that is vital, it is also about the tone of the debate and the potential impact of the outcome for the whole of the United Kingdom
Put starkly, this could be the final Queen’s speech before Scotland becomes an independent country or, in contrast, it could be the start of a different kind of change in the United Kingdom with a stronger, more powerful Scottish Parliament with major new powers and change too across the rest of the United Kingdom, devolving powers away from this overcentralised democracy that is our current-day Westminster.
The potential for change that affects the whole of the United Kingdom was highlighted by the noble Lords, Lord Hennessy and Lord Whitty, and by many others in this debate. The all-party group on further decentralisation and devolution in the UK established by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Purvis, is tremendously important and can influence the leadership of all the main political parties. I say that because all the main parties are now supporting substantial new powers, including major tax-raising powers, for the Scottish Parliament beyond the referendum. That is a good thing.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde who often over the decades has been a political adversary for the work of his Conservative Party commission in this area, which, for the first time in my political memory and I am sure in the memories of most in this Chamber, commits the Conservative Party to radical reform in a way that home rule Liberals could only previously have dreamt of—so well done. These are issues of fundamental long-term importance to the political landscape of each of our nations and all parts of the United Kingdom. So, too, is the quality and the tone of the debate, to which I will return.
I have been telling people about the vicious, negative, so-called cybernats for many years—for more than a decade. They are not a new phenomenon. Politicians and journalists have had online attacks and smears from nationalists for years. A member of staff employed by Cabinet Secretary for Education Mike Russell was forced to quit for abusive postings exposed back in 2009. At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, correctly called it the politics of vile hatred.
University principals and college heads have spoken privately to me and to others about the intimidation they have been subject to from very senior figures in the SNP Government. In my view, academic freedom has been undermined. Supporters of the Better Together campaign are now routinely online called quislings, traitors or collaborators. Today that has perhaps come to a head. The author JK Rowling, who announced a donation of £1 million to the no campaign, has been subjected to a tirade of foul-mouthed abuse by the cybernats. Much of that abuse would be inappropriate to repeat in this Chamber. A Scottish charity called, ironically, the Dignity Project tweeted at lunchtime today:
“What a #bitch after we gave her shelter in our city when she was a single mum”.
The charity has been reported to the Scottish charity regulator.
Worst of all was the attack today by the First Minister’s special adviser on the mother of a disabled child. Her crime was to speak at the no campaign’s press event on Monday. Alex Salmond’s special adviser tried to smear her, questioning whether she was a normal mum. One cybernat said of her today,
“A liar now and forever whatever the outcome of the vote, a known Quisling and collaborator”.
This woman, Clare Lally, is a carer whose daughter requires round-the-clock support for her cerebral palsy. It is worth closing by repeating Ms Lally’s words as they are important. She said:
“The comments were really bad, things about me being a mum, about me being a carer, about the work I do, the campaigning I’m involved in. Just really nasty, nasty things, very personal and very upsetting … People think this is ok behaviour, that if we don’t agree with one side then we have to be shot down, we have to be publicly ridiculed, we have to be belittled, we have to be discredited for anything that we do”.
It is not okay behaviour.
This is a defining moment for Alex Salmond, the SNP and the yes campaign. He likes to denigrate and attack the no campaign for being negative. So Mr Salmond, what have you got to say about your campaign and campaigners tonight? Will you speak out? When you go to the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, what will you say? Do you have the strength of character and leadership to do what is right and end these damaging, divisive, disgraceful attacks right now and for the rest of this campaign or will you stay silent? Scotland awaits the answer.
Lord Williams of Baglan (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate on the gracious Speech. I make no apologies that most of my remarks deal with the Middle East, an area I know well and where I served the United Nations for several years. It is my belief that security in the region from the Maghreb to the Gulf is deteriorating and many of the threats to this country emanate from that region—as other noble Lords suggested.
Three days ago, Pope Francis, in an extraordinary gesture on Sunday, invited the Israeli President Shimon Peres and President Mahmoud Abbas to Rome, where they participated in prayers in the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths. It was a bold gesture but also a poignant one. It was, after all, more than 20 years ago in 1994 that these two men—90 year-old Shimon Peres and 80 year-old Mahmoud Abbas—contributed so much to peace in the region by signing the Oslo peace accords that led to the establishment of the Palestinian National Authority. It was poignant, too, because President Peres will shortly step down as head of state, to be replaced by Reuven Rivlin, who has espoused the concept of a greater Israel. On the Palestinian side, President Abbas is now ageing and his successor—whoever that might be—will find it much more difficult to make peace with Israel.
A year is a long time in politics and it is worth reflecting where we were this time last year. Then in the debate on the gracious Speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to “a critical year” ahead for the peace process between Israel and Palestine and also mentioned,
“the first ever democratic presidential election in Egypt”,—[Official Report, 15/5/13; col. 404.]
when President Morsi was elected. Some 12 months on, I am afraid there is little optimism to show for that. Once again, progress on an Israeli/Palestinian peace process has eluded us and is for the foreseeable future halted with seemingly little pressure from the quartet of the United States, EU, Russia and UN. The quartet was established 12 years ago precisely to advance that process. Tony Blair is now in his seventh year in his appointment as envoy of the quartet. A few more years and he will match his tenure in office as Prime Minister. He said in his speech last month that economics goes side by side with politics. On that he is clearly right. But, frankly, progress on either has been meagre. How could that be otherwise when one party—Israel—is a powerful nation state that controls nearly all the borders of Palestine and occupies most of the territory while continuing to build settlements?
As for Egypt, the first ever democratic election—mentioned last year in our debate—ended in a putsch leading to the trial and imprisonment of President Morsi. I have no truck with the Ikhwan—the Muslim Brotherhood—but point out that Morsi’s successor was elected on a smaller turnout of 47% even though the concept of polling day was elastic and was extended not once or twice but thrice and with all sorts of incentives offered to prospective voters. I gently remind the House that President Morsi remains the only elected President of Egypt who is a civilian in the 62-year history of the Arab Republic of Egypt. All the others have been generals or, in the latest case, a field marshal. What is our policy now? Do we still believe in peace between Israel and an independent Palestine? What are our hopes for a democratic Egypt? The Minister should answer these questions.
For all the difficulties in Palestine and Egypt, the heart of the storm remains the conflict in Syria. I take this opportunity to praise the efforts of my former UN colleague, Lakhdar Brahimi, who worked tirelessly as the envoy of the UN and chaired the Geneva peace process. The immediate prospects for Syria are grim, and dire for resuming that process. In the short run we must do more to expand the UN’s humanitarian endeavours and to reach refugees wherever they are. There is no doubt in my mind that more can be done here.
In that regard, the limited truce achieved recently in the city of Homs could perhaps be followed by others. There are reports of a similar initiative in the second city of Aleppo, perhaps aided by the apparent resumption of back channels between Iran and Turkey. In the absence of a global peace, the pursuit of local humanitarian measures, as we saw many times in the Bosnian war of 1992-95, may be all we can achieve in the coming months.
In neighbouring Iraq, the sudden military attack on Mosul yesterday and on Tikrit today underlines the increasing dangers of the Syrian war encompassing neighbouring countries. We need to do far more to help, with allies, the neighbouring states of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.
I shall finish by pointing out that we have heard much today of Russia—a key country in any settlement of the Syrian conflict and without which it will be impossible to make progress—but little of China, a country far less democratic than Russia, which today published a White Paper on Hong Kong, asserting its rights as a unitary state to establish comprehensive jurisdiction over all local administrations including Hong Kong. It seems clear that the Communist Party in Beijing is increasingly intent on thwarting moves towards universal suffrage in Hong Kong in the coming years and our Government must give close attention to this issue.
Lord Rennard (LD Ind)
My Lords, when I was involved in preparing the proposed Liberal Democrat responses to the gracious Speech in previous years that preceded a general election, it was often easy to describe it as being only half a Queen’s Speech. It was clear in those years that the parliamentary programme was expected to last only half a Session and that even quite a few of the proposed Bills were never likely to reach the statute book. The uncertainty over the timing of a general election did not make for good planning of the legislative timetable. I believe that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act should help the legislative process in future.
I was, however, disappointed to hear last week the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, describe the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as gerrymandering. The principle of fixed-term Parliaments has previously been accepted by the Labour Party, and should it form a Government again I expect the principle to be retained. There are good reasons for keeping the term at five years, which I would like to explain.
The most controversial issues with which I have been involved during the course of this Parliament relate to parliamentary boundary reviews and electoral registration. Widespread concern was expressed during the many lengthy debates that we had on those issues about the millions missing from the electoral register—perhaps as many as 6 million in this country—who are effectively denied the right to vote because they are not on the electoral register. This caused major problems in our debates when it came to deciding how to redraw constituency boundaries in order to make them more equal in terms of the number of voters in each seat.
It is understandable that these issues will not be addressed again in this Parliament, but we must all learn lessons from the arguments that we had previously if we are properly and fairly to address those issues in future, as we must after next May’s general election. Therefore, a proposal that I would make to help the process of redrawing constituency boundaries would be to combine the electoral registration process and the census when it takes place every 10 years. The effort and the expense put into conducting the census would be more justified if the data were also used in that year to help compile the electoral register. Of course, many other things should also be done to improve both the completeness and the accuracy of the electoral register each and every year. The annual canvass, in my view, will remain very important; but if we have the most accurate and complete electoral register every 10 years, we should conduct the constituency boundary reviews every 10 years as well, based on those data.
It is my belief that one of the first things that Members of Parliament will want to change after the next general election is the idea of a review of parliamentary boundaries every five years. The current legislation means that no MP, when elected, can be sure that their constituency will still exist at the following general election. Conducting boundary reviews every 10 years and every two Parliaments would make much more sense, but this will also require maintaining the fixed-term Parliament principle at every five years.
I believe that all those currently involved in drawing up their parties’ proposals for the next general election and a future Parliament should look at this idea and help to try to avoid the acrimony that we saw over the issues of parliamentary boundary reviews and electoral registration earlier in this Parliament. Draft legislation that can be properly examined in advance of its introduction to both Houses would help to avoid many of the problems we saw when debating these issues and help us provide for fairer and better outcomes in the future.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I wish to focus on constitutional issues. For reasons of time, I do not propose to address those which have already been addressed today—we have had some outstanding speeches on the case for maintaining the union—and which we will be debating further during the Session. Rather, I wish to comment on two issues that are not scheduled for debate, but which I believe we should address. One derives from the overall legislative programme and the other from the consequences of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The provisions of that Act determine that we are in a fifth Session, but they also raise wider constitutional questions. Both issues are core to the relationship between the Executive and Parliament.
The Government have been criticised for the fact that there is a light legislative load this Session. At the same time, we are variously told that there is too much legislation. Like my noble friend Lord Tyler, I prefer the emphasis to be on quality rather than quantity, and I therefore do not complain when there is not a heavy legislative programme. Where I think critics do have a point is in criticising the fact that the House does not sit so regularly when there is a light legislative agenda. The Government appear to think that when they have not got Bills to be considered then there is no point in either House sitting. Legislative scrutiny is a core function of Parliament but it is not the only one. Parliament gives expression to the views of the people. It serves, crucially, to call the Government to account for their actions. The Government need to accept that Parliament should sit even if there is not much legislation to discuss. As my noble friend Lord Tyler indicated, there is a great deal that we can and should be doing. One cannot rely on the Government to provide the time. We therefore need to address the issue of who determines the business and, more fundamentally, when we sit. The former issue was addressed by the Goodlad committee, but not endorsed by the House. The latter is a fundamental constitutional issue that has yet to be addressed.
I turn to a question of constitutional significance that has been neglected. The Constitution Committee’s report last Session on the constitutional implications of coalition government addressed the importance of collective responsibility. One feature of the doctrine is that the Government rest on the confidence of the House of Commons. It was a convention that if a Government were defeated on a vote of confidence, they either resigned or requested the dissolution of Parliament. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act translated the convention into statute, something that is very rarely done. If an explicit vote of no confidence is carried, an election is triggered unless within 14 days a new Government are formed and achieve a vote of confidence from the House.
The Constitution Committee report notes that a vote on the Queen’s Speech is often seen as a traditional means of expressing confidence in the Government. But what happens now if the Government are defeated on the Queen’s Speech or on a major issue of public policy? There cannot be an early election under the provisions of the 2011 Act. One presumes that the Opposition would move a Motion of no confidence, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Government could be defeated on a substantive issue, but that the third party or dissident government Back-Benchers responsible for the defeat do not want an election and are not prepared to vote for a Motion of no confidence. What happens then? The Government could resign—the other option under the old convention. What if they do? No provision of the 2011 Act has been engaged. What does the Palace do?
I was going to develop the point but I am conscious of time. These are important issues. It is up to the House to take the initiative rather than simply responding to what the Government have placed before it. I hope that we will take the opportunity of using this Session to address issues that are fundamental to the relationship between Parliament and the Executive and deserve to be addressed sooner rather than later.
My comments are addressed to the House but I conclude with a question to the Minister: when will the long-awaited response of the Government to the Constitution Committee report on the constitutional implications of coalition government be published?
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the commitment in the gracious Speech that the Government will continue to,
“make the case for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom”.
As we all know, in less than 100 days’ time Scots will vote in a referendum on independence. All Westminster parties are committed to reform of the devolution settlement. All are committed to reforming the union rather than destroying it. I would like to take this opportunity once more to express the negative consequences of a yes vote for Scots and for all inhabitants of the British Isles.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Parekh, who is not in his place, I do not regard pointing out financial consequences to Scottish people as frightening them or trying to intimidate them or boss them about. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Quin: outlining difficulties and consequences is the act of a friend, not of someone being threatening.
Arrangements for devolution are founded and based on the fundamental principle that the union is a collective partnership. Scottish independence would end a 300 year-old agreement of working together for the common good of all. In its stead it would erect unnecessary barriers to the prosperity and well-being of Scots and the inhabitants of the remainder of the United Kingdom.
It is not a question of whether Scotland could go it alone—of course it could—but should it? The answer is firmly no. Withdrawal from the union would diminish Scotland. It would be a signal of Scotland turning in on itself, at precisely the same time that co-operation and collaboration are becoming ever more important. To draw a dividing line between Gretna and Berwick would see Scotland drift away from its biggest market and lose significant economic clout.
At the moment there is completely free movement of people, goods and investment between the four nations of the United Kingdom. This movement is clearly to the benefit of all. It is unlikely that such a situation would continue were a border to be drawn on the map. Today one in five Scots is employed by companies based in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and 70% of Scotland’s exports, accounting for around 35% of Scottish GDP, go to the rest of the United Kingdom.
The openness of economic and political union has benefited the Scottish economy. Independence would erect barriers that would threaten current and future prosperity. Already Standard Life, one of Scotland’s most successful companies, has announced that it is preparing contingency plans to move some of its operations to England in the event of a yes vote. Royal Bank of Scotland has expressed similar uncertainty about its place in an independent Scotland. Scotland’s largest employer, the nuclear base on the Clyde, employs more than 6,000 people. Under UK government plans, it will employ an additional 1,500 people by 2020. These existing and future jobs are dependent upon UK military contracts, which would vanish due to barriers erected by independence.
The Confederation of British Industry—not an organisation that I usually quote with approval—whose members employ 500,000 people in Scotland, has been damning of the vision proposed by the Scottish Government’s White Paper. It has warned that Scottish industry would face two lots of red tape and Scots higher borrowing costs, and that on jobs and growth there is a risk of “jeopardising” Scotland’s future success.
The key point, as my right honourable friend Gordon Brown has made a great point of indicating, is that the United Kingdom has been a “sharing union”, in which the wealth, in all senses of the term, has been shared. Independence would prevent a sharing of the resources that make the United Kingdom a social union as well.
Labour established a UK-wide welfare state, which has provided for common pensions across the UK. That social union has sought to deliver a decent standard of living for all. Social security and the allocation of resources on the basis of need are best provided for by the union. In this instance, I join with the Government in continuing to make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Remaining part of the political, economic and social union which is the United Kingdom is the surest way to secure Scotland’s future prosperity and common living standards for all.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, as many other speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and my noble friend Lord Stephen, have already highlighted, for the 20 or so Scottish Peers who actually live in Scotland, there is no issue more critical, in or out of the Queen’s Speech, than the oncoming referendum on Scottish independence. A year ago, we were reasonably confident that a sizeable majority of our fellow Scots would vote to remain in the United Kingdom, but now we are not so sure.
Apparently, there are still about 20% of Scots who have not made up their mind on how they are going to vote, and the crafty Mr Salmond has cleverly made the prospect of an independent Scotland seem more and more glamorous and exciting: a great new adventure into the unknown when we resourceful and inventive Scots will have the power to make our own decisions and overcome all the obstacles that the patronising English—and patronising Scots with suspect English connections—will attempt to put in our path. No, all the disadvantages and new problems that, we are told, an independent Scotland will have to face are either greatly exaggerated or, in time, will be resolved to Scotland’s advantage. Even those independent and unbiased assessments of future difficulties, even a mild warning from President Obama, are interpreted as a form of bullying by outsiders who do not have Scotland’s best interests at heart. Anything that can be construed as a foreign threat only makes a few more of my fellow Scots more defiant and more determined to give independence a try.
This referendum is not really about economics, jobs, business or the future prosperity of Scotland. It is about passion and romantic nationalism. It harks back to a time when Scotland as a separate country had legitimate reasons to hate the English. That position is not helped by those English—who tend to be Conservatives, by the way—who say, “Good riddance to the Scots. In spite of the generous concessions we make to them, they don’t like us. Let them go. We don’t need them”. How short-sighted those English are. They have not grasped how much a greatly weakened Britain—a United Kingdom without Scotland—will adversely affect them too.
I fear that I am a very poor spokesman for the union for two reasons. First, I was educated, if that is the right word, in England, so I am regarded as deeply suspect by supporters of the Scottish National Party and by some other Scots. Secondly, my title, the Earl of Glasgow, was earned almost entirely for work on the Act of Union in 1707. David Boyle, who became the first Earl of Glasgow in 1703, was one of the architects of the union. He was Treasurer-Depute in the Scottish Parliament, and worked tirelessly to ensure that the Act of Union came about, supported and egged on by the merchants of Glasgow, who saw union with England, particularly the ability to trade with the English colonies, as essential to their future prosperity. It is rumoured that the first Earl acquired stashes of slush money from the Court of St James specifically to bribe Jacobites in the Scottish Parliament to vote against their natural instincts. Even if that is true, I have always contended that it is not the person who does the bribing in a good cause who should be condemned; it is those who accept the bribes who should look to their consciences.
We must remember that at the time of the union, England and Scotland were very close to being at war with each other, particularly in the Caribbean, where England refused to let the Scots trade with their colonies. In an attempt to compete with the English, the Scots suffered the humiliation and tragedy of the Darien scheme, which resulted in near-bankruptcy for Scotland. After that, union with England became the only possible answer and, after five years of negotiation and hard bargaining, Scotland secured a pretty good deal. It retained its own independent legal system and its own church and England paid off Scotland’s debts from the Darien fiasco. The passing of the Act resulted in a period of great prosperity for England and Scotland, not to mention the flowering of Scotland’s age of enlightenment.
As we approach the day of the referendum, it is important to remember why the Act of Union came into being in the first place. Scottish nationalists will argue that circumstances are very different now: that Scotland is prosperous and does not need support from England. I am sure we all agree that Scotland could manage perfectly well as an independent country, much as the Republic of Ireland does now, but no major world power would take a blind bit of notice of what Scotland thinks or believes. Within the United Kingdom, however, the Scots still have influence in world affairs. Mr Salmond argues that Scotland today is virtually disenfranchised because a Conservative Government are in power. He forgets to mention that the Scots disproportionately rule the whole of Britain when Labour wins an election.
Scotland’s history has been the same as that of the rest of the United Kingdom for more than 300 years. It is incomprehensible to me that so many of my countrymen now wish to break up a union that has been so comparatively successful for so long. In spite of a few changing circumstances, it seems to me that most of the issues that resulted in the Act of Union are as relevant today as they were then. We Scots have the misfortune, unlike the Scandinavian countries, of having a much larger and more powerful country occupying the same island as we do. I can hope only that a majority of my countrymen will appreciate that is in our interest as well as England’s that we remain partners, rather than returning to the days of being rivals.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly about international development. I was disappointed that in the noble Baroness’s opening remarks for today’s debate, there was very little reference to international development and no comment on the fact that in 2015 the millennium development goals come to their conclusion. We will then be negotiating the future sustainability goals. I say this in the context of congratulating this Government, and indeed their predecessor, on their achievements in international development.
Like other noble Lords, I travel considerably. I spend time within health services, in particular in Africa, and I see the result of that international development and the ways in which the UK is regarded. I would cite three ways: first, it is regarded as compassionate and showing solidarity with the poorest people in the world; secondly, it is regarded as extremely capable, with remarkable skills that we are able to bring from all parts of our society; thirdly, it is also seen as very powerful—as a real leader and a country to be influenced. This is of course not just the Government’s doing but reflects the thousands of people and their many supporters who in the UK pay attention to working in aid, international development and co-development around the world. I declare my interest as the chair of the trustees of Sightsavers, which works on preventing and dealing with blindness in 34 countries around the world.
The specific point I want to make is to urge the Government to accept the proposal of having a disability-inclusive development strategy as part of their negotiations around the sustainability goals. I appreciate that I am pushing partly at an open door here. I also know that the International Development Committee, in its 11th report on disability and development, set out clear proposals on how this might be done. These included making sure that there are clear targets and timescales, making sure that disabled people have a central role within DfID’s discussions and policy-making, and making sure—this is probably the most key point of all—that the results on international development are disaggregated by disability. That is so that if, say, 5% of people are not being dealt with in the appropriate way, we can see what proportion of those people are actually disabled. We need those results disaggregated by disability. We also need to embed that notion and treatment of disability, and of working with people with disabilities, into DfID culture. I know that the Government will respond in due course to the report from the International Development Committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could say anything about that at this stage.
This is not just about compassion, although compassion is extraordinarily important. It is about the waste of potential. I know through my association with Sightsavers that a cataract operation performed quickly enables the patient to regain his or her economic status within a year. It helps the patient to get back to work.
The UK is a very powerful, critical and influential leader in relation to the post-2015 sustainable development goals. I urge the Government to use their political capital to influence others to ensure that development goals never again exclude people with disabilities and other marginalised groups. After all, it was this Government who said last year that their international development plans should never leave anybody behind.
Lord Rana (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the gracious Speech. In the past few weeks there has been all manner and shape of talk about the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and the resulting benefits or disadvantages. However, there is hardly any talk about another equally important organisation—the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty the Queen has provided outstanding leadership to the Commonwealth over the past 60-plus years. The Commonwealth has proved a great asset and is a potential source of strength for all its member nations. Of the 53 members, four are developed countries—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There are some fast-developing major economies such as India, South Africa and Nigeria, and many other member countries rich in natural resources and cultural heritage are now developing their economies. However, there could be a much more vibrant, closer, practical and beneficial relationship between the member states in the Commonwealth and there is much more scope to develop business between the Commonwealth countries. A focused and strategic effort to develop trade between the member countries would help all round. This would supplement the increasing exchange of students, academics and research scholars between Commonwealth countries and encourage the development of new knowledge-based enterprises.
The Prime Minister led a large delegation to India last year aimed at developing business, educational and tourism links. However, the level of business between the two countries is nowhere near what it should be. There is a new Government in Delhi after the recent elections whose main focus is on development and business. Of approximately 814 million voters in India, nearly 550 million actually voted. That is about 66% of the total. The result was a clear mandate for the Bharatiya Janata Party. There has, however, been much negative comment in the press about the BJP and, indeed, its leader, Mr Narendra Modi. Various malign and unjustified allegations have been made against him. The BJP was commonly labelled as a Hindu fundamentalist party and Mr Modi was unjustly blamed for the communal riots in Gujarat in 2002. This charge against him has been proved untrue.
Mr David Cameron, our Prime Minister, was the first world leader to congratulate Mr Modi on his success. Her Majesty’s Government need to work hard to strengthen their relations with Mr Modi. Indeed, the Government will no doubt wish to build on their relations with all the major democratic parties of India. Mr Modi is pro business. The electorate have given him a clear mandate to carry on the economic development of India and the national and international business community has shown confidence in the new Government. The stock market value in India has gone up approximately 20% in the past few weeks. It is predicted that India’s GDP will double in less than 10 years’ time.
The UK has an outstanding opportunity to play an active role in developing trade with India and so become a partner in India’s economic growth and welfare. It should be a win-win situation for both countries. India is a union of 29 states and seven union territories with a population of 1.2 billion. To develop trade, we here in the UK would best have representation in each state. Here, I would like to express an interest, having led many trade delegations from Northern Ireland to India since 2001. As a result, Northern Ireland has attracted many more IT companies, employing about 6,000 people. There is no reason why the trade between India and the UK cannot double over the next five years. There is little barrier to such growth. Most barriers are more imaginary than real. There is so much in common between the two countries and a tremendous amount of good will which will readily facilitate working together even more closely.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the infamy with which the Central African Republic was known due to its brief, self-declared existence as an empire under Emperor Bokassa has been replaced by such anonymity that it is now known only to the tea-time audience of BBC1. “Central African Republic” is a frequent pointless answer on the popular quiz show of that name. I wish briefly to shine a spotlight on the Central African Republic, which even as a failed state remains one of the world’s donor orphans.
Despite the sacrifices of the French peacekeepers and the AU force over many months, even the capital Bangui has not been fully secured. On 25 May, three young Muslim men on their way to a reconciliation football match were set upon and publicly dismembered. A reprisal attack on 28 May on a Catholic church that was housing 8,000 internally displaced people saw the priest attacked in front of the congregation, grenades thrown and 15 people killed. Not surprisingly, a few days later a mosque was attacked. Whatever the UN might label this violence legally, it is clearly now of a religious nature. Not surprisingly 97% of the Muslim population in Bangui has fled, often assisted by peacekeeping forces so inadequate in number that evacuating populations under attack was their only option. Many of these people have gone to the more remote and less fertile north-eastern border region with Chad, and while the world has had its focus on Syria and South Sudan, the CAR has now been de facto partitioned on religious lines and the hatred and distrust among communities shocks even the most experienced aid workers who visit the nation. Sources now report that young Muslim men in the north-east with little to do but much anger are listening to or reading extremist messages on smartphones, and Hausa-speaking people from northern Nigeria are reported to be among their number. It is reported that, on Saturday 26 April 2014, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri called on all Muslims to provide military support to their brothers in the Central African Republic. This is increasingly a regional security crisis, and as the Lord’s Resistance Army area operates with impunity in the south-east of the Central African Republic, why would Boko Haram not think it could do the same?
The entire 4.8 million population of the CAR is affected. There are over a third of a million refugees in neighbouring countries and half a million internally displaced people. The UN fund remains chronically underfunded at just 31% of the $565 million needed. To its credit, the UK is the second-largest bilateral donor, but at a relatively modest £23 million. Healthcare is run by MSF, 75% of schools are shut, those that are open are run by NGOs and there is no judicial system or police. Although the UK is not the lead nation in the CAR, we are seen as a trusted neutral arbiter and there is much we can do. Will the Minister encourage the EU and the UN to devise a 10-year development plan for the CAR? Will he outline whether the UK will reassess its lack of ambassadorial presence in the CAR? The United States has recently announced its decision to appoint a special representative.
Elections are scheduled for February 2015, but the population has dispersed and the national archives have been destroyed. With no state infrastructure, there is no electoral register. With no security, people will not give their names to any official documentation. Would my noble friend the Minister please investigate whether the African Union or UN could send a team of electoral commission officials, especially from other African nations, to assess if holding an election is possible in the timescale envisaged?
However, there is a good news story in all of this: the close relationship and reconciliation work being done by the Catholic Archbishop of Bangui, the nation’s Imam, Imam Layama, and the leader of the evangelical churches, Reverend Guérékoyame-Gbangou. I was recently encouraged to learn of a trip by the UK Muslim charities fund and CAFOD, the Catholic charity, which went together to visit the nation. DfID must allocate more money to the CAR, but perhaps this could be done in the form of a fund for consortiums of aid agencies to bid for, which must include our own Catholic, Muslim and evangelical agencies. What better way to support the brave interfaith reconciliation work in the CAR than to send our aid through the same representatives? For every £1 we spend on this aid would then also be £1 spent on reconciliation. If the Christian community in the CAR gets its food aid from UK Muslim aid agencies, this will help to rebuild much-needed trust among the communities. The domestic splash-back would be some much-needed encouragement to UK Muslims at the moment.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will refer to two issues: Northern Ireland, and then Moldova in relation to Ukraine.
First, on Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned about dealing with the past. It seems quite a long time since the Prime Minister was cheered outside the Guildhall in Derry when he accepted the report of the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday. In fact, to many people, the idea that a Conservative Prime Minister would be cheered in Derry in that way was quite remarkable.
Of course, other aspects of the past have not been dealt with. I fully accept that the British Government have less of a direct responsibility since some of their powers have been devolved. Nevertheless, we still have a real responsibility, together with the Irish Government. We have got to deal with the past. There are too many unanswered questions.
We have had the Eames Bradley Consultative Group on the Past, which has been referred to in earlier speeches, with its suggestion of a legacy commission. We have had the Haass report; I refer in particular to the section contending with the past. These are important. They have not yet been accepted. What is clear is that there is still a great deal of pain in Northern Ireland on the part of people who have suffered through the Troubles: people who have had loved ones killed or are still suffering from injuries.
I will refer to two matters which are quite contentious. The Ballymurphy families, whom I met some time ago, still have a serious grievance about what happened and they want some sort of resolution. Of course, there is also the stalled inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. However, there are those on the other side of the disputes in Northern Ireland as well. I have just referred to two involving the British authorities, but of course some of the issues may refer to state action while others refer to actions by paramilitary organisations. Indeed, one of the suggestions in the Haass report is that people have to acknowledge what they did, and that that process is part of dealing with the pain of victims.
This is not the time to go through the Haass findings in detail, but they talk clearly about the need to provide more support for victims and survivors, including the mental health aspects of what the victims have gone through. The Haass report talks, as I said earlier, about the need to acknowledge past acts. It suggests that, although we have a number of different institutions or mechanisms for dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, they have not actually worked all that well. Therefore, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Haass report suggests that there should be a new historical investigations unit which would encompass the other processes and procedures for dealing with the past. That is quite an interesting and persuasive idea. The report also has a number of other suggestions of how to deal with it. Yet some very difficult issues remain, such as the difficulty of immunity for people who may wish to come forward to give evidence, and the difficulty of anonymity. All those issues have to be resolved. Indeed, the Haass report acknowledges that it has not resolved all those issues; it has not even been able to decide on how to define a victim, which is itself a contentious issue. It is absolutely clear that the British Government have to move forward and encourage the parties, with the Irish Government, to deal with this issue, otherwise it will be like a cancer in that society.
On Moldova and Transnistria, I had the chance to visit the former in March, one of several visits I have paid as a member of an all-party group, lately facilitated by our excellent ambassador in Chisinau, Phil Batson. It was clear in March, as it is now, that events in Ukraine dominated thinking in Moldova, whether on the part of the Moldovan Government or the part of the Transnistrian regime, which we also visited. It is quite an eye-opener to visit the Supreme Soviet in Tiraspol, which is a throwback to a bygone age. The people there were adamant, saying that they had had a referendum in 2006 which wanted independence for Transnistria with a view to eventually joining Russia. They had just written to Moscow to say that they still thought that.
On one occasion during a previous visit as a parliamentary delegation we suggested, both in Moldova and to the Transnistrian people, that an element of devolution might be a possible way forward. We referred to what had happened in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and they were quite surprised at the extent of the powers that had been devolved. Nothing much came of those discussions, although they all said that they were interesting. However, I have noticed that recently the Russians have said that they would like some element of devolution in Ukraine. We cannot tell the Ukrainians what they should be doing, but on the other hand devolution does not seem to be an impossible way forward for Ukraine, just as it would not be impossible for Moldova.
One of the other things we were able to point out to the people there apropos of events in Crimea was that the process of giving devolution here—save the recent, rather nasty incidents that my noble friend Lord Reid and other noble Lords have referred to—was agreed by two Governments, which has taken more than two years, and that the question was agreed. It was not a matter of sending troops in, but a proper democratic process. Perhaps they should think of taking that way forward.
Finally, I will refer to another, quite different issue. We shall shortly debate the Assisted Dying Bill, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. I support that Bill, and hope that the House will not end up being out of line with what most people in this country want.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this House, in this Parliament, in a unique country in the world, has dedicated its time today to celebrate and to debate the very meaning of our kingdom and our place in the world. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that it is worth noting that almost a quarter of our parliamentary party has chosen to speak in this debate. For me it is a cause for pride that four of our parliamentary party are Ministers on the Front Bench.
The four days of debate on the humble Address draw to a close, and over those days many noble Lords have remarked on Bills that were not in the gracious Speech. Many from the Opposition Benches have looked forward to next year, when they hope to be drafting their own Speech, with the Bills they would hope to see in it. However, I am pleased that there is one omission this year. I am glad that this parliamentary Session will not have, at its start, an independence for Scotland Bill. I fervently hope that one will not be necessary towards the end of this Session. I also hope most fervently that the next gracious Speech shall include measures to provide for powers to be transferred from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament, permanently.
There are two routes open to us in the Westminster Parliament: to have to respond to a vote for independence that will mean the end of the United Kingdom or to proactively lead on reforming, modernising and improving this kingdom and how it is governed for the people. This House is perhaps not the best model of reform, but in our deliberations in the coming weeks we have an immense responsibility on all our shoulders. We must seize the opportunity that is presented by the desire for reform that is so evident in the nations, and which we have heard in today’s debate. I am talking about reform not as a response to nationalism but rather as an idea in and of itself—an idea for more decentralised, balanced and accountable governance across the nations. It is also an idea founded in the sovereignty of people. Sovereignty seems to be used too frequently in the debate in Scotland by nationalists in the argument for independence, but sovereignty is also for those of us who believe that we can pool authority and share power but retain independence and identity.
Some in this debate have regretted constitutional affairs and devolved issues being debated with foreign and Commonwealth affairs or development and culture, but in many respects they are all interlinked in the choices that people will be making in Scotland in September. How we see ourselves and how others see us around the world is a central issue in our debate, not only within Scotland but, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown said today, for our country and the United Kingdom as a whole. On Friday I will be marching in the Selkirk Common Riding. More than 300 riders will commemorate the town’s sole survivor from the battle of Flodden, 501 years ago. It will be a tangible reminder for us of how governance in these islands can be bloody and can allow there to be victims of political disagreement. I will march as a member of the Selkirk Merchant Company, which was established in 1694 and has marched every year since then—at one point, to raise funds for the Darien scheme that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, referred to. That is my identity; it is in my heart. We value our past and cherish our identities, but we must lead the future.
Those of us who do not support independence and the political parties operating within Scotland are finding common ground on the principles for further reform in the event of a no vote, and that is immensely positive. There should also be a commitment to deliver legislation in the Queen’s Speech of the new Administration, whichever party forms the new Government. I am particularly pleased that my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael has announced that in the event of a no vote in the referendum he will convene within 30 days a conference on the new Scotland, to bring together those who have put forward proposals for the future of Scotland that can inform legislation in the new Parliament after the 2015 general election. I wonder if it would be a good idea if that new Administration of the UK Government also convened a conference of the new union so that we could discuss and debate all the nations’ relationships across these islands, but particularly reform of this Westminster institution.
We do not need to rest on our laurels in the debates within Scotland, nor do we need to sacrifice debates of the head for debates of the heart, but we as legislators need to take this opportunity and lead for the future. Those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches will be seizing that opportunity with relish.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the reference in the gracious Speech to achieving peace and stability in Ukraine. I wish the new Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, well in securing a peaceful settlement based on greater autonomy for parts of eastern Ukraine and respect for the linguistic rights of ethnic Russians. Crimea is a special case, a historical anomaly that has been Russian since the days of Catherine the Great, with only a relatively short interlude under Kiev’s sovereignty when it was gifted to Ukraine in 1954. It is home to Russia’s strategically vital Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol. Its current status is non-negotiable for Moscow—it is their Falklands.
In my view, a full-scale military incursion into eastern Ukraine would occur only in the event of very heavy loss of life among ethnic Russians living there, which I do not think is likely. As I wrote in my book, Russia First, in 1997:
“For over two hundred years Russia has had a love-hate relationship with the West. All signs now show that Russia is leading towards more comfortable and familiar territory away from the West, developing a ‘Russia First’ policy and its own ‘Tsarist’ solutions with profound effects on domestic and foreign policy”.
I conclude that nothing has changed much in the intervening 17 years. The only surprising thing about the Ukrainian crisis was that the West was surprised.
In recent years, Moscow has sought to diversify its energy flows away from passing through Ukraine, developing Nord Stream and attempting to bring on South Stream, and latterly pivoting to the east, with its $400-billion 30-year gas deal with Beijing. The Russian Federation is presently the largest exporter of oil and gas to the European Union, supplying it with around one-third of each. Energy accounts for nearly two-thirds of Russia’s total exports, with the EU being its biggest customer. But the cooling of the political relationship between the EU and Russia is changing the energy security landscape. A race to diversify energy supplies is now on, with Europe looking to alternative pipelines to bring gas from Azerbaijan and central Asia, with possible future shale gas supplies from the US and the development of renewables, liquefied natural gas and new nuclear in some cases. Meanwhile, the EU Commission is seeking to block the South Stream pipeline project to reduce Europe’s dependence on Moscow.
Russia is seeking to open up new energy markets in the Far East, particularly China. This may affect the financial viability of LNG projects in the region, as more Russian gas is piped to China’s domestic market. The question will become: who will win the race to diversify energy supplies, Europe or Russia? The mutually beneficial arrangement of the past, with virtually guaranteed supplies, is no longer a given. The reaction of the West, slipping back into Cold War mode and rhetoric, has not been inspiring. It has at times appeared like an existential crisis, harking back to the certainties of the Soviet era. Taking on Moscow is familiar comfort territory for the West. Yet the crucial challenges now facing our societies in the 21st century are social, economic and environmental, and the wider threat of Islamic fundamentalism and the far more potentially destabilising territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas. These are the areas on which the United States and its European allies should be focusing. Washington’s much vaunted “pivot to Asia” appears temporarily derailed, as the old zero-sum game of Europe’s nation states again holds sway.
Western foreign policy is the weakest that I have seen it since the end of the Second World War, which is worrying with a world that has just one hyper-power. If the Taliban regain control of Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda Iraq, it will come back to haunt us. International terrorism and cyberwarfare are less tangible by nature than conflicts among nation states, but they have a potentially massive impact on the stability of our societies. Recently, we commemorated the 70th anniversary of the Normandy landings. It should remind us not only of the massive sacrifice of that time, but of what can be achieved when nation states unite to defeat evil.
I look forward to a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis in Ukraine, and to former allies again working together to tackle the real challenges facing this interconnected and interdependent world.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Morgan has already most effectively and comprehensively addressed current national and EU issues from this Dispatch Box, as well as the horrors of violence against women and children, and constitutional issues, including the referendum on Scotland’s future, in which Alistair Darling is playing such an effective and leading role in the campaign, making the case for keeping the United Kingdom united and together. I do not intend to try the patience of the House by seeking to cover the same ground again. Neither do I intend to repeat the comments made by my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury on our approach to international development.
Perhaps, not surprisingly, the number of speakers today reflects a numerical level of interest normally reserved in your Lordships’ House for debates on assisted dying or House of Lords reform. This has been at times a sobering debate, not least through those contributions on the level and nature of violence against women and children, and those expressing serious concerns on developments in north Africa, the Central African Republic, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Ukraine.
As has been said, included in today’s debate is the heading of “culture”. It is not entirely clear why it has been included, given that its relationship and relevance to other topics listed is not immediately obvious. That is particularly so because Foreign Office funding has been withdrawn from the BBC World Service—a service that projects British values and plays an important role in extending our influence through soft power. Nevertheless, I wish to raise a few points on DCMS matters. I should declare that I am a vice-president of Level Playing Field, an organisation that seeks to secure a better experience and better facilities for disabled supporters at sporting events, not least at our major football clubs and grounds.
We in this House recently debated the report of the Select Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, spoke earlier today about governance in sport and the need for a more professional approach, and on disability access to sporting events. I believe that this Government are taking the issue of improved facilities for disabled supporters very seriously. In the higher echelons of football, though, with certain honourable exceptions, the lack of action in improving the situation for disabled supporters has been all too obvious. Following the recent furore over the comments on women expressed by the chief executive of the Premier League, the FA top leadership voiced strong criticism but basically said that it was powerless to do anything. That in itself is a sobering commentary on the state of the structure of football governance in this country. The danger is that the continuing lack of a single powerful governing body responsible for and accountable to the game at all levels in this country, with the necessary powers and financial clout to act—whatever fine words are spoken and written—will also thwart the delivery of an Olympic legacy, including for disabled supporters.
On the wider question of governance, I simply remind the Minister that the Government have previously said, in the light of two highly critical CMS Select Committee reports, that they will act if the game itself does not address governance issues. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s position and that they do not regard the football authorities as having yet adequately addressed the matter? Can he give some indication of how much longer the Government intend to wait, and the reasons for deciding not to proceed with any legislation or regulatory action at this stage?
I said that I felt that the Government took the issue of facilities for disabled supporters seriously. I am not sure, though, that the same can be said regarding sport in schools. Following the Government’s decision to scrap ring-fenced funding for school sport in 2011 and cut the money available, provision has become patchy across the country. More than a third of schools have reported a decrease in participation since the loss of ring-fenced funding for school sport partnerships. There is nothing in the Government’s programme to indicate any change of tack; indeed, there was no mention of sport in the Queen’s Speech last year—just eight months after the 2012 Olympic Games.
I have one final comment related to the DCMS’s responsibilities. We have had one Secretary of State who appeared to be such an admirer of Mr Murdoch that, had he still been Secretary of State, one wonders whether the Murdoch dynasty would have fancied their chances of filling the post of chairman of the BBC Trust. It is imperative that the appointment to this position is made on merit, because it is vital that the BBC gets the best person for the job who will fulfil his or her responsibilities in the best interests of the organisation and the licence-fee payers. It needs to be an appointment that commands confidence and attracts widespread approval if that person is to take the BBC forward.
Defence Bills are normally a rarity. However, the gracious Speech indicated the appearance of a third defence Bill in this Parliament, this time to create a new service complaints ombudsman. If we continue at this rate, defence will be on a par with crime when it comes to enthusiasm for legislating. The Bill is shortly to have its Second Reading in this House. In view of that and an imminent debate on our Armed Forces, which should provide, among other relevant issues, an opportunity to consider today’s damning National Audit Office report on the Government’s incompetence over the planning and implementation of its Future Force 2020 programme, I will confine myself to a couple of points on defence matters.
First, the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings and the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War are poignant and powerful reminders of the debt our nation has owed and continues to owe to our Armed Forces. Without their bravery and sacrifice over the years we certainly would not be able to have any of our current debates about the meaning and embodiment of British values.
My second point concerns the further strategic defence and security review scheduled for next year. The last one in 2010 was a rushed job that had little to do with strategy and everything to do with finances and making cuts. The next SDSR needs to determine exactly what it is we need our Armed Forces to be able to do to deliver clearly defined strategic and security requirements, and then ensure the necessary personnel, investment and equipment are provided to enable those requirements to be delivered. What we cannot do is expect our Armed Forces to carry out roles and deliver capabilities for which the necessary resources have not or will not be provided.
Some of this debate has been about the European Union. The Government’s Bill guide on the Queen’s Speech refers to the negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the USA. It would be helpful if, in the light of concerns that have been voiced by some about the possible impact of a new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the Minister could give assurance that any such partnership will not weaken or amend any current legislation in this country that applies to employment conditions or the working environment, and that it will not weaken the current ability of a British Government to determine the areas in which it does or does not think it appropriate for the private sector to be involved in providing public service, including in respect of national security and defence, and health provision. Could the Minister also tell us—at least in respect of overall objectives—what is the negotiating mandate to which the Government have signed up to for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations? What is the timetable for concluding the negotiations and then seeking approval at parliamentary level?
This is the final day of the debate on the Government’s limited programme for the final Session of this Parliament. The programme that began four years ago with gushing words about the allegedly nation-changing impact of the now hastily forgotten big society is being brought to an end with the Government’s decision actually to include, in what should be a major Speech setting out their programme, a pronouncement relating to a charge on plastic bag usage, which does not even appear to need a government Bill to implement. We certainly have gone downhill fairly steadily as far as this programme’s activities are concerned. We now await the response to this lengthy and wide-ranging debate from the Minister, who will no doubt rise to speak with the words, last Wednesday, of his noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market ringing in his ears: that he should strive to avoid “too much passion” and “too much irascibility” and follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and keep calm at the Dispatch Box.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his encouragement regarding the tone I will set.
It is just over a week since the Motion for an humble Address was moved very eloquently and wittily by my noble friend Lord Fowler and was very ably seconded by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. The House has debated many issues since then. As has been pointed out by more than one contributor, today we are debating constitutional and devolved affairs, foreign and Commonwealth affairs, defence, international development and culture. My noble friend Lady Falkner said that it might have been better if those subjects had been taken on separate days, and I am strongly tempted to agree.
When I agreed to wind up this debate, I was told that it might focus very much on Scotland. There is another debate on Scotland planned for 24 June, to which I again have to respond. However, it is indeed a privilege to be able to respond to a debate which has ranged widely but has also included outstanding contributions from noble Lords who have such considerable expertise and knowledge in these areas.
It is probably also important to recognise some of the overlaps that are not immediately obvious. The Commonwealth Games were mentioned by my noble friends Lady Warsi and Lord Moynihan, and of course that links to the importance of the Commonwealth. It is one aspect of the Commonwealth where its nations and peoples come together and celebrate sport. The Games will also involve a considerable amount of work not only on the part of the Scottish Government but on the part of the United Kingdom Government in support for what we all very much hope will be a great feast of sport and a great success in Glasgow later this year.
My noble friend Lady Warsi also mentioned the importance of consular representation and talked about what we owe to our consular service throughout the world. She put it in the context of the many thousands of English supporters who will be travelling to Brazil. I very much regret that our consular officials in Brazil will not have to deal with Scottish supporters or indeed with Welsh and Northern Irish supporters. It is important that those of us who are arguing the case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom should remind ourselves of the great service, advice and support that Scots travelling abroad get from a range of consular staff, as well as other Foreign and Commonwealth Office support, right across the globe.
It will be impossible for me to pick up every point, for which I apologise. However, I shall try to pick up some of the themes and, if particular issues have arisen, I shall write to noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank let me off the hook and said that he would accept a letter. I had actually anticipated being asked about English Heritage and had asked for briefing on it. However, the briefing had not anticipated the question that came from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich as to whether we can have a fast track for women bishops entering your Lordships’ House if, as we hope, the legislation is passed to allow women bishops in the Church of England. That would be a matter for the Government and the Church of England to discuss at the appropriate time.
The right reverend Prelate also raised the question of cathedrals. As he acknowledged, in the Budget in March it was announced that a two-year grant scheme will provide £20 million to help to carry out essential repairs to ensure that cathedrals are in a good condition, as they will play a central role in the First World War centenary commemorations.
On the subject of culture and sport, my noble friends Lady Bonham-Carter and Lady Benjamin mentioned the creative industries. Today, our agenda has been driven by the Creative Industries Council. It was originally set up by the Government but is now industry-led, and its role is to identify key barriers to growth for the sector and to propose actions both for the industry and for government to overcome. We are committed to working with the CIC as it develops and implements an industry-led growth strategy, building on its work to date. I understand that that strategy is due to be launched in the summer, and we will obviously want to reflect on it and respond to it.
I will write to my noble friend Lady Benjamin about tax credits for children’s programmes However, I very much take on board the point that she made about the importance of diversity in the media, particularly behind the scenes. It was a very well made point, and it is something not just for government but for the industry itself to reflect on.
Sport, particularly football, and governance were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. In a courageous speech, he rightly praised the investigative journalism that has gone on with regard to a number of serious allegations which will have to be properly addressed. Governance obviously is recognised to be primarily in the gift of the national governing bodies. We expect good governance of all national governing bodies, particularly for funded sport—including Sport England and the UK sport NGBs—in achieving this and in overseeing the investment of public funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the BBC. We have just announced the process for appointing the next BBC Trust chair. Recruitment is under way. The post has been publicly advertised. The chair will be chosen on merit in a fair and open way. The noble Lord also mentioned the BBC World Service. It is fair to point out that the former chair of the trust, my noble friend Lord Patten, confirmed in a statement in June 2013 that the funding for 2014-15, which is the first year of licence fee funding, would be £245 million. That is an increase of £5 million on the previous year. He also stated that the move to licence fee funding would give the World Service a far greater degree of financial security.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it would probably save time if I do not give the huge list of things which the Government have achieved in terms of constitutional measures passed during this Parliament. He mentioned the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as did my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I say to my noble friend who asked about the Government’s response that I very much apologise to the House that once again we have not been able to respond to the Constitution Committee’s report on the constitutional implications of coalition government. I had hoped that we would have been able to respond by today’s debate and regret that that has not been the case. As my noble friend indicated, it raises important matters which require detailed consideration and agreement. I hope that that response will come as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lord Tyler mentioned the recall Bill and emphasised the importance of getting the right balance. Those who represent their constituents and express their views, which may be unpopular, should not be at risk. But if people break the rules or commit a crime, we will put in place a means for a petition by their constituents.
The House will have been struck by the number of very considered contributions from those from Northern Ireland and from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has considerable experience of the Province. Questions were asked about dealing with the past. It is certainly the Government’s view that they wish to remain engaged in the process but they very much recognise that the process must be led by the people and parties in Northern Ireland. We welcome the fact that the party leaders are resuming their meetings. The point was made in more than one contribution that we must ensure that confidence is not eroded. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others referred to the Haass talks. The Government and the Prime Minister take a close interest in this matter, which is very much at the heart of people and community groups in Northern Ireland.
I certainly will try to respond in writing about what has been happening as regards the royal prerogative of mercy. My right honourable friend answered Questions on Northern Ireland today and last month indicated that the records from 1987-97 would be looked at. I know that she wants to take that forward. My noble friend Lady Randerson, as the Northern Ireland Office’s spokesman in your Lordships’ House, certainly confirmed that we would be more than willing to arrange a briefing for Peers with an interest in Northern Ireland before the Summer Recess. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the issue of coroners. They probably merit more than I can answer in a very short time. I hope that noble Lords who raised issues about Northern Ireland will accept the Government’s keen and continuing interest in this. We recognise the sensitivities involved and will certainly want to engage with noble Lords who have a very understandable interest in what is going on there.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, reflected on where we were 12 months ago and where we are today. It was a litany of crises that had magnified or new ones that have arisen. It was a very sombre but necessary reminder to us as to the uncertain world in which we live. His speech was certainly a very thought-provoking contribution to the debate. He obviously led on to argue the case for the importance of our defences, with military size and equipment being up to the challenges. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who particularly focused on the capacity of the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy remains one of the world’s premier navies. It has a bright future. We have shown our commitment to the Queen Elizabeth carriers and the Type 45s. Of the latter, the sixth, HMS “Duncan”, was commissioned last year. There are the Type 26 global combat ships, the Astute-class programme and the new offshore patrol vessels. Four new support tankers for the Royal Navy are being built and we also look forward to the Successor-class submarine programme. I know that there is more detailed concern about that; it was reflected in the debate.
A number of colleagues, including my noble friend Lord Lyell and the noble Lord, Lord West, called for a debate on this. Following the debate on 23 June—a week on Monday—on the defence legislation setting up the ombudsman, there will be a debate on the armed services when there will be an opportunity to deal with these issues more fully. My noble friend Lord Lyell asked about the future reserves. The expansion of the reserves is about doing defence differently, not about doing it on the cheap. Our recruitment campaign is a five-year programme. We are confident that we can meet our target of 35,000 trained reservists by 2018. It was never the intention that the bulk of these would be recruited in the first year.
One of the themes that ran through our debate today is the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. It was interesting that in a number of areas where issues of crisis and conflict arose they were also linked to issues involving sexual violence. The Government welcome and are grateful for the tributes paid not least to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary for hosting the summit. We heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby made a very important point about the extent to which sexual violence against women and young people is now used almost as an instrument of war. That was reflected in the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who gave specific examples. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in a very powerful speech about events in Somalia, drove home the need for concern. It is absolutely vital that we address and counter this.
I think we all agree that identifying the problem is one thing and the next step is implementation. We very much hope that we will be able to start taking these matters forward. We note the challenges in many countries. Burma was mentioned, as were Somalia, northern Nigeria, Syria and Sudan. It is because women and girls are more likely to be poorer, more marginal and with fewer rights that DfID puts them front and centre. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry talked of the need to address social norms to counter violence against women and girls. That is very true and underpins the work that my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone has done in challenging and combating female genital mutilation. A number of practical outcomes—I will not list them all—are sought as a result of this global summit. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, referred to the violence in Kashmir but, with particular reference to Nigeria and Boko Haram, the Foreign Secretary will be hosting a summit tomorrow, 12 June, to facilitate regional co-ordination in the fight generally against Boko Haram. That is another welcome initiative by my right honourable friend.
I thank noble Lords for their tributes to the United Kingdom for finally reaching the milestone of contributing 0.7% of GNI to aid. As to what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said about her work in Somalia and what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said in relation to health and education in Pakistan, I can assure them that all contracts are awarded strictly in accordance with extremely tight protocols. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, it is right that we assist. It makes sense for the UK to help in encouraging stability and growth around the world. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in paying tribute to aid workers. It is important that we recognise the contribution they make, very often in the front line.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey challenges our thinking on the private sector and we shall be responding to the ACI review shortly. We are already addressing its concerns. I hear what he says about the key importance of encouraging the development of parliaments so that they can hold governments to account. The rule of law, transparency and respect for human rights are also vital for a flourishing democracy, as a number of noble Lords have said.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised the issue of data collection. We agree that there needs to be such a data revolution as information enables us to ensure that no one is left behind. That theme was also reflected in the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Low, Lord Hunt and Lord Crisp, in relation to those with disabilities. DfID will be shortly responding to the International Development Select Committee’s report in this area. I recognise also the point made by my noble friend Lord Loomba that widows suffer a double discrimination both as women and as widows. He has a formidable record in championing them.
We recognise, too, that climate change affects the poorest the most. It was therefore important to have the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Prescott, Lord Hunt and Lord Collins, about the vital importance of reaching global agreement on climate change. We will seek to take that forward across different departments in government in the various discussions and negotiations that lie ahead.
On Ukraine, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his comments and I can assure him that the situation will remain a priority. We are, as a Government, committed to supporting President Poroshenko and his efforts to tackle the challenges facing Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, mentioned the Austrian state treaty. The bright young men and women in the Box have not yet come up with a specific answer but I shall make sure that he gets one. He asked about our strategy beyond sanctions. We continue to work in close co-ordination with our European Union and other international partners to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine and to help support the Government of Ukraine and President Poroshenko in delivering the stable, democratic and prosperous future that the Ukrainian people deserve.
We played a key role in ensuring that Ukraine had the support it needed to hold free and fair elections on 21 May. I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in what may or may not have been a maiden speech. He is welcomed back for the assistance that he and his company have given in that.
In partnership with Ukraine and the United States we hosted the Ukraine asset recovery forum in April in London in order to co-ordinate the next steps. We are providing up to £10 million in technical assistance. Plans include the World Bank Trust Fund, partnership with Germany, public financial management, managed funds for technical assistance and support to elections. There are a number of strands to this.
As to the relationship with President Putin, a point raised by a number of your Lordships, EU heads of state and government agreed on 20 March that relationships with Russia could not simply be business as usual. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken to both President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov respectively during this crisis. As has been indicated, the Prime Minister met President Putin on 5 June and reaffirmed that the status quo is unacceptable and that the continuing destabilisation of eastern Ukraine must stop. President Putin must recognise the legitimate election of President Poroshenko and stop arms crossing the border into Ukraine. I think it was my noble friend Lord Jopling who asked about NATO in this context. The House will be well aware that NATO’s response to an attack is governed by Article 5 of the Washington treaty, but noble Lords will be aware of activity that NATO has been undertaking in some of the Baltic member states.
Clearly the issues in the Middle East—I think it was said from Mali to Mumbai—are of vital importance. Picking up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on 2 June, President Abbas announced the formation of an interim technocratic Government, who the United Kingdom and others have welcomed, reuniting Gaza and the West Bank under a Government who are committed to peace. That, we believe, is a necessary condition for resolving the Israel/Palestinian conflict. It is very much in the long-term interests of Israel and of peace in the whole region for the two states to embrace a two-state solution, as I believe the alternatives to that would be much more difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, expressed from his own rich experience his concerns about these matters. He also asked about Egypt. We believe that inclusive political participation is essential in Egypt and that President al-Sisi needs to ensure that Egypt’s constitution allows for it. The noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, told us about MECCI going off to Egypt this weekend. The Government welcome MECCI’s endeavours to strengthen parliamentary links between the United Kingdom and Egypt, and efforts to build accountable and democratic institutions. I will be interested to hear about the visit, and no doubt the noble Lord will report back to your Lordships’ House on his return.
It is clear that the events of the past 24 hours in Mosul underline the difficulties and the sensitivities. As the Foreign Secretary has indicated, they show the impact of Syria on the entire region and emphasise the need to renew efforts to find a political solution in Syria. It is also important for a new Government to be formed to ensure political unity in Iraq and to tackle terrorism. I would urge all Iraqis to unite. These are developing issues, but I can assure the House that my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will monitor them very closely. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry asked if the Friends of Syria Group could do more to prevent fracturing of the Syrian opposition and what the international community could do. It is important to recognise that the United Kingdom has driven international efforts to find political solutions to the crisis. At its request, we have provided political and practical support to help the opposition national coalition become a credible and unified body capable of engaging in the political process, and through the Friends of Syria core group, we have encouraged the national coalition to reach out to all sections of Syrian society and demonstrate that it is a credible alternative to the Assad regime. We will continue to work with our London 11 allies and the national coalition to strengthen it further.
Before moving on to Scotland, I have a final issue to raise on foreign affairs, but first I must respond to my noble friend about the structure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I think that her points are well made and well understood, and I understand that efforts are being made to increase the number of women in senior ambassadorial and high commission positions. Perhaps I may write to her in more detail because her argument was well made and well received.
I turn to the issue of European Union reform. I do not think that we should be trapped into setting out a list that the media would then treat as a set of red lines. It is important to look at the direction of the European Union. It was right of my noble friends Lord Ashdown and Lord Alderdice to remind us of the origins of the European Union only a few days after we marked the 70th anniversary of the D-day landings, when Europe was liberated from the tyranny of Nazism. The vision of the initial pioneers was to create a Europe that would not be at war, as it was for my father’s and grandfather’s generations, but would be at peace. We want to ensure that we have a European Union that is competitive, flexible and democratically accountable. We are working with our partners to try to achieve that objective, and we should not underestimate what we have done so far. We have delivered the first ever cut in the budget of the European Union. We have launched negotiations on the world’s biggest trade deal. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who raised the matter, that it is still very much part of the United Kingdom’s priorities to have an EU-US trade deal. It would be worth £10 billion a year to the United Kingdom economy. We have safeguarded British interests by keeping the United Kingdom out of the eurozone bailout facility. Lastly, as someone who represented a fishing constituency for many years, the progress I have seen in the development of the common fisheries policy over recent months and years is right and proper, but I never thought that I would see the day that it happened.
Finally, the issue of Scotland has been raised by many contributors. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, who was the first person to speak principally on Scotland in this debate, was one that struck us all. He reminded us of the tone of the campaign. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell of Coatdyke, and my noble friend Lord Stephen also referred to the response on the Twittersphere to JK Rowling’s announcement. I was worried when the noble Baroness said that she was going to quote something because I had seen some of the responses. She was right: the ones that she and my noble friend quoted are by far the least offensive. It is language that would shock us all. It is not just the tone of the debate—important issues about the referendum get lowered by that—but my fear is what kind of Scotland would it be if people like that got their way? It is not one that I would feel comfortable in, where if you do not agree you are subject to such denigration. Those who have said it is important that the First Minister should clearly distance himself from that are absolutely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said that we should be looking to a new United Kingdom in the event of a no vote. As I indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has already indicated that he would be looking to convene a new Scotland because we already have a number of contributions from the political parties. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who talked about the constitutional convention. That was important but none of the projects that has come forward so far for Scottish devolution, either the 1998 Act or the 2012 Act, came originally from government. The convention, which embraced civic Scotland, led to the 1998 Act, and the 2012 Act was a product of the Calman commission, which again was not a product of government but of parties and people in civic Scotland. It is important that we engage civic Scotland.
However, I also take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, about the wider United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked about decentralisation, and colleagues from Wales and Northern Ireland have contributed as well as those from England. Indeed, in replying to a letter some time ago from the First Minister of Wales about a constitutional convention embracing the whole United Kingdom, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister indicated—I do not have his exact words—that there was some merit in that but not until we had actually done the most important thing of making sure that we still had a proper United Kingdom with Scotland as part of it.
I want to conclude with this thought. We have talked about the number of things that have been achieved. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, used the “Monty Python” sketch to illustrate them. But many of the things that have been relevant to this debate are relevant to why Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom—not least the global summit aimed at preventing violence against women in conflict, which is something that the United Kingdom can proudly claim to have been at the forefront of leading. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is absolutely right to stress the importance of human rights values in our foreign policy. I think that an independent Scotland would still aspire to these values but it would not have the clout or the influence to do as much about it as we can as part of the United Kingdom.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said that we cannot have Scotland’s voice always filtered through London but that is not the point. The point is that Britain’s voice is very often in a Scots accent—or a Welsh accent or a Northern Irish accent—as much as an English accent. It is that greater thing that we aspire to, things that we do not just historically—and reference has been made to the historic events of 100 years ago and 70 years ago—but today, such as preventing violence against women or the arms trade treaty, which again we took leadership of, which we can be proud of as a United Kingdom and in which Scots have played their part. That is why I sincerely believe that on 18 September my country men and women in Scotland will vote to ensure that we are kept together, and that when we have the Queen’s Speech next year, whoever is doing the arrangements will ensure that Scotland still comes under constitutional and devolved affairs and not foreign affairs. I ask the House to support the Motion.